Parece errado mais não É!!!
(aqueles usos de palavras que as pessoas pensam que é
errado mas que não são erradas em inglês)
Infinitivo separado
Para os mais criticos, "to boldly go where no man
has gone before"( que significa ir bravamente onde
nenhum onde foi antes) deveria ser "to go boldly...."É
importante notar que colocar uma ou mais palavras entre
"to"e um verbo não é um erro, é muito
expressivo e gracioso; mas muitas pessoas se ofendem em
separar o infinitivo e dizem que somente se separa quando
duas palavras soam estranhamente.
Terminar uma frase com preposição
Um bom exemplo de uma "regra"artificial que
ignora o uso geral. O famoso critico atribuiu a Winston
Churcill um ponto que esclarece bem isto: "This is
the sort of English up with which I will not put."onde
o modo mais usado é This is the sort of English with
which I will not put up." (Este é um tipo de Inglês
up com o qual eu não irei me acostumar)
O uso de "between"para somente dois, e
"among" para mais de dois
O "-tween" na palavra "between"
está claramente ligado ao número dois(two); mas, como
os Dicionários Oxford mostram, "Em todos os
sentidos, BETWEEN tem, desde de seu uso mais antigo sido
usado para mais de dois. "Nós estamos falando do
uso antigo, anglo-saxonico. Os mais exigente tem se esforçado
para usar AMONG quando existem 3 ou mais objetos em
discursão, mas isto é uma afirmação muito vã. Mesmo
pessoas chatas para falar não dizem naturalmente, "A
treaty has been negotiated among England, France, and
Germany."
Algumas pessoas afirmam que "over" não pode
ser usado com o siggnificado de "mais que",
como na frase "Over a thousand baton-twirlers
marched in the parade". Eles insistem que OVER
sempre se refere a algo fisicamente acima: say, the blimp
hovering over the parade route. OVER tem sido usado no
sentido de "more than" por milhares de anos.
"Forward" versus "forwards"
Muitos livros preferem usar "forward" e
"toward" a "forwards" e "towards."
nenhuma destas formas é relamente incorreta, entretando
a forma sem o s final é talvez um poucco mais formal.
"Gender" versus "sex"
Feministas tem se esforçado muito para tirar referências
quanto a sexualidade de discussões de femeo e machos não
involvendo relacionamento ou reprodução revivendo um
antigo significado da palavra "gender." que tem
vindo para referir-se em tempos modernos principalmente
na linguagem, como sinonimo de "sex"em frases
como "Our goal is to achieve gender equality."
Americanos, sempre nervosos sobre sexo, fortemente abraçaram
este uso, que é agora padrão. Em alguns campos literários
"sex"é agora usado para catalogar
biologicamente dterminados aspctos do caracter masculino
ou feminino (reprodução, etc.) enquando "gender"se
refere aos seus aspectos sociais (comportamento, atitudes,
etc.); mas no jeito de falar simples esta distinção não
é mantida, É pouco original fingir que as pesoas que
usam "gender"em seu novo sentido estão fazendo
um erro, assim como é pouco original dizer que "Ms."
significa "manuscrito"(que é MS). Para
terminar, I must admit I was startled to discover that
the tag on my new trousers describes not only their size
and color, but their "gender."
Usando "who" para pessoas, "that"
para animais e objetos inanimados
In fact there are many instances in which the most
conservative usage is to refer to a person using "that":
"All the politicians that were at the party later
denied even knowing the hostsomewhat more traditional
than the more popular "politicians who." "
is actually An aversion to to human beings as somehow
diminishing their humanity "that" referring may
be praiseworthily sensitivecannot claim the authority of
tradition. In some , but it sentences"She is the
only person I know of that , "that" is clearly
preferable to "who": prefers whipped cream on
her granola." In the following example, to exchange
"that" for absurd: "Who was it that said,
'A woman without a man is like a "who" would be
fish without a bicycle'?"*
*Commonly attributed to Gloria Steinem, but at least
one source says she was quoting Irina Dunn.
"Since" need not always refer to time. Since
the 14th century, when it was often spelled "syn,"
it has also meant "seeing that" or "because."
This word has meant "it is to be hoped" for
a very long time, and those who insist it can only mean
"in a hopeful fashion" display more hopefulness
than realism.
"The plane will be landing momentarily" says
the flight attendant, and the grumpy grammarian in seat
36B thinks to himself, "So we're going to touch down
for just a moment?" Everyone else thinks, "Just
a moment now before we land." Back in the 1920s when
this use of "momentarily" was first spreading
on both sides of the Atlantic, one might have been
accused of misusing the word; but by now it's listed
without comment as one of the standard definitions in
most dictionaries.
Lend vs. loan
"Loan me your hat" was just as correct
everywhere as "lend me your ears" until the
British made "lend" the preferred verb,
relegating "loan" to the thing being lent.
However, as in so many cases, Americans kept the older
pattern, which in its turn has influenced modern British
usage so that those insisting that "loan" can
only be a noun are in the minority.
Regime vs. regimen
Some people insist that "regime" should be
used only in reference to governments, and that people
who say they are following a dietary regime should
instead use "regimen"; but "regime"
has been a synonym of "regimen" for over a
century, and is widely accepted in that sense.
Near miss
It is futile to protest that "near miss"
should be "near collision." This expression is
a condensed version of something like "a miss that
came very near to being a collision" and is similar
to "narrow escape." Everyone knows what is
meant by it and almost everyone uses it. It should be
noted that the expression can also be used in the sense
of almost succeeding in striking a desired target: "His
Cointreau soufflé was a near miss."
"None" singular vs. plural
Some people insist that since "none" is
derived from "no one" it should always be
singular: "none of us is having dessert."
However, the word was not in fact originally based on
"one." The earliest form in English is "nan";
and "none" is most often treated as a plural.
"None of us are having dessert" will do just
fine.
Scan vs. skim
Those who insist that "scan" can never be a
synonym of "skim" have lost the battle. It is
true that the word originally meant "to scrutinize,"
but it has now evolved into one of those unfortunate
words with two opposite meanings: to examine closely (now
rare) and to glance at quickly (much more common). It
would be difficult to say which of these two meanings is
more prominent in the computer-related usage, to "scan
a document."
Off of
For most Americans, the natural thing to say is "Climb
down off of [pronounced 'offa'] that horse, Tex, with
your hands in the air"; but many U.K. authorities
urge that the "of" should be omitted as
redundant. Where British English reigns you may want to
omit the "of" as superfluous, but common usage
in the U.S. has rendered "off of" so standard
as to generally pass unnoticed, though some American
authorities also discourage it in formal writing. However,
"off of" meaning "from" in phrases
like "borrow five dollars off of Clarice" is
definitely nonstandard.
In England, the old past participle "gotten"
dropped out of use except in such stock phrases as "ill-gotten"
and "gotten up," but in the U.S. it is still
considered interchangeable with "got" as the
past participle of "get."
Till vs. 'til.
Since it looks like an abbreviation for "until,"
some people argue that this word should always be spelled
"'til" (though not all insist on the apostrophe).
However, "till" has regularly occurred as a
spelling of this word for over 800 years and it's
actually older than "until." It is perfectly
good English.
Teenage vs. teenaged.
Some people object that the word should be "teenaged,"
but unlike the still nonstandard "ice tea" and
"stain glass," "teenage" is almost
universally accepted now.
Nouns are often turned into verbs in English, and
"reference" in the sense "to provide
references or citations" has become so widespread
that it's generally acceptable, though some teachers and
editors still object.
Feeling bad
"I feel bad" is standard English, as in
"This t-shirt smells bad" (not "badly").
"I feel badly" is an incorrect hyper-correction
by people who think they know better than the masses.
People who are happy can correctly say they feel good,
but if they say they feel well, we know they mean to say
they're healthy.
Some people get upset at the common pattern by which
speakers frame a quotation by saying "quote . . . unquote,"
insisting that the latter word should logically be "endquote";
but illogical as it may be, "unquote" has been
used in this way for about a century, and "endquote"
is nonstandard.
Persuade vs. convince
Some people like to distinguish between these two
words by insisting that you persuade people until you
have convinced them; but "persuade" as a
synonym for "convince" goes back at least to
the 16th century. It can mean both to attempt to convince
and to succeed. It is no longer common to say things like
"I am persuaded that you are an illiterate fool,"
but even this usage is not in itself wrong.
I must say I like the sound of this distinction, but
in fact the two are interchangeable as both nouns and
adjective, though many prefer "preventive" as
being shorter and simpler. "Preventative" used
as an adjective dates back to the 17th century, as does
"preventive" as a noun.
No less a writer than Chaucer is cited by the Oxford
English Dictionary as having used "entitled"
in this sense, the very first meaning of the word listed
by the OED. It may be a touch pretentious, but it's not
wrong.
Logic and tradition are on the side of those who make
this distinction, but I'm afraid phrases like "part
of a healthy breakfast" have become so widespread
that they are rarely perceived as erroneous except by the
hyper-correct. On a related though slightly different
subject, it is interesting to note that in English
adjectives connected to sensations in the perceiver of an
object or event are often transferred to the object or
event itself. In the 19th century it was not uncommon to
refer, for instance, to a "grateful shower of rain,"
and we still say "a gloomy landscape," "a
cheerful sight" and "a happy coincidence."
I pronounce this an antiquated distinction rarely
observed in modern speech. Nobody really supposes the
speaker is saying he or she has been roasted to a turn.
In older usage people said, "I have done" to
indicate they had completed an action. "I am done"
is not really so very different.
Old-fashioned writers insist that you raise crops and
rear children; but in modern American English children
are usually "raised."
"You've got mail" should be
"you have mail."
The "have" contracted in phrases like this
is merely an auxiliary verb indicating the present
perfect tense, not an expression of possession. It is not
a redundancy. Compare: "You've sent the mail."
This etymology seems plausible at first. Its
proponents often trace it to the American Civil War. We
do have the analogous expression "to pass muster,"
which probably first suggested this alternative; but
although the origins of "cut the mustard" are
somewhat obscure, the latter is definitely the form used
in all sorts of writing throughout the twentieth century.
Common sense would suggest that a person cutting a muster
is not someone being selected as fit, but someone
eliminating the unfit. See the
alt.usage.english faq explanation of this term.
Authoritative dictionaries agree, the original
expression refers to offering to reward a stubborn mule
or donkey with a carrot or threatening to beat it with a
stick and not to a carrot being dangled from a stick. Further
discussion. This and other popular etymologies fit
under the heading aptly called by the English "too
clever by half."
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the
earlier form was "spitten image," which may
indeed have evolved from "spit and image." It's
a crude figure of speech: someone else is enough like you
to have been spat out by you, made of the very stuff of
your body. In the early 20th century the spelling and
pronunciation gradually shifted to the less logical
"spitting image," which is now standard. It's
too late to go back. There is no historical basis for the
claim sometimes made that the original expression was
"spirit and image."
"Connoisseur" should be spelled "connaisseur."
When we borrowed this word from the French in the 18th
century, it was spelled "connoisseur." Is it
our fault the French later decided to shift the spelling
of many OI words to the more phonetically accurate
AI? Of those Francophone purists who insist we
should follow their example I say, let 'em eat bifteck.
See also Commonly
Made Suggestions
List
of errors
|