affect / effect


Affect and effect are sometimes confused, but before you can sort them
out, you must sort out the two words spelled affect. One means “to put on a
false show of,” as in She affected a British accent. The other can be both a
noun and a verb. The noun meaning “emotion” is a technical term from
psychology that sometimes shows up in general writing, as in this quote
from a Norman Mailer piece about the Gulf War: “Of course, the soldiers
seen on television had been carefully chosen for blandness of affect. In its
far more common role as a verb, affect usually means “to influence,” as in
The Surgeon General’s report outlined how smoking affects health.
Effect can also serve as a noun or a verb. The noun means “a result.” Thus
if you affect something, you are likely to see an effect of some kind, and
from this may arise some of the confusion. As a verb, effect means “to
bring about or execute.” Thus, using effect in the sentence The measures
have been designed to effect savings implies that the measures will cause
new savings to come about. But using affect in the very similar sentence
These measures may affect savings could just as easily imply that the
measures may reduce savings that have already been realized


affinity

If there is an affinity between two friends, does one then have an affinity for
the other? Affinity has a variety of meanings, ranging from “relationship by
marriage” (its earliest) to “a resemblance or similarity” and extending to “a
natural attraction” and even “a chemical attraction.” The meanings are clear
enough, but it’s not always easy to know which preposition to use for each
of these senses, especially since other factors can affect your choice, such
as which verb you use. Thus you might say you feel a real affinity for (or to

or with) your old neighborhood, and you might also say that the affinity
between your old neighborhood and the people who once lived there is
strong. Thus, while all of these usages are acceptable, there are some
restrictions on which prepositions are acceptable with affinity. When affinity
means “similarity or resemblance,” the prepositions with, to, and between
are standard, and it’s hard to imagine a context where for would make
sense. When affinity means “a feeling of kinship or sympathy,” as in I have
an affinity for people in their situation, for is perfectly acceptable. In some
metaphorical uses, as in writing about food, for tends to predominate: Lamb
has a distinct affinity for red wines. In chemical contexts, for is the
preposition of choice: the blood’s affinity for oxygen, a dye with an affinity
for synthetic fabrics



affirmative


The expressions in the affirmative and in the negative are thought to come
from military aviation, where pilots use affirmative and negative as
synonyms for yes and no in radio transmissions. The idea is that the longer
words are less likely to get lost in static. But when used in ordinary
contexts, such as She answered in the affirmative, these expressions
almost always sound pompous. She answered yes would be more
acceptable even at the most formal levels of style.

agenda


It is true that Cicero would have used agendum to refer to a single item of

business before the Roman Senate, with agenda as its plural. But in
Modern English agenda is used as a singular noun to denote the set or list
of such items, as in The agenda for the meeting has not yet been set. If a
plural of agenda is required, the form should be agendas: The agendas of
both meetings are exceptionally varied




aggravate


Aggravate need not be an aggravating word. It comes from the Latin verb
aggravare, which has two meanings: “to make heavier,” that is, “to add to
the weight of,” and “to annoy,” “oppress,” “burden.” When some people
nowadays claim that aggravate should mean only “to make worse” and not
“to irritate,” they ignore not only an English sense in use since the 17th
century but also one of the original Latin ones


alibi

You may be glad you have an alibi if you’re hauled into court, but you may
not want one if you’re merely called on the carpet. When used as a noun in
its nonlegal sense of “an excuse,” alibi splits the Usage Panel in half. Forty-
nine percent accept it in the sentence He always had a ready alibi for the
quality of his service. When alibi is used as an intransitive verb meaning “to
make excuses,” as in If you must alibi, at least try to be convincing, it is
unacceptable to 72 percent of the panel
 

 
 
all that


The construction all that is used informally in questions and negative
sentences to mean “to the degree expected,” as in I know it won an Oscar,
but the film is not all that exciting. In an earlier survey, the Usage Panel
rejected the use of this construction in formal writing



all in negative sentences


Be careful with sentences that have an all … not … form. They may be
hazardous to your clarity. The sentence All of the departments did not file a
report may mean that some departments did not file or that none did. If you
want the first meaning, you can express it unambiguously by saying Not all
of the departments filed a report. If you want the second meaning, try a
paraphrase such as None of the departments filed a report or All of the
departments failed to file a report. Note that the same problem can arise
with other universal terms like every in negated sentences, as in the
ambiguous Every department did not file a report

 
 
 
 
alleged



An alleged burglar is someone who has been accused of being a burglar
but whose innocence or guilt has yet to be established. An alleged incident
is an event that is said to have taken place but has not yet been verified. In
their zeal to protect the rights of the accused, newspapers and law
enforcement officials sometimes misuse alleged. A man arrested for
murder may be only an alleged murderer, for example, but he is a real, not
an alleged, suspect in that his status as a suspect is not in doubt. Similarly,
if the money from a safe is known to have been stolen and not merely
mislaid, then we can safely speak of a theft without having to qualify the
description with alleged
 
 
 
all right / alright


Is it all right to use alright? Despite the appearance of alright in the works of
such well-known writers as Flannery O’Connor, Langston Hughes, and
James Joyce, the merger of all and right has never been accepted as
standard. This is peculiar, since similar fusions like already and altogether
have never raised any objections. The difference may lie in the fact that
already and altogether became single words back in the Middle Ages,
whereas alright (at least in its current meaning) has only been around for a
little over a century and was called out by language critics as a misspelling.
You might think a century would be plenty of time for such an unimposing
spelling to gain acceptance as a standard variant, and you will undoubtedly
come across alright in magazine and newspaper articles. But if you decide
to use alright, especially in formal writing, you run the risk that some of your

readers will view it as an error, while others may think you are willfully
breaking convention
 
 
 
allude / allusion / refer / reference


all allusions are references, but are all references allusions? Many people,
following the advice of language critics, like to make a distinction between
alluding to something and referring to it. By this thinking, allude and allusion
should apply to indirect references in which the source is not specifically
identified: “Well, we’ll always have Paris,” he told the travel agent, in an
allusion to the movie Casablanca. By contrast, refer and reference usually
imply specific mention of a source: I will refer to Hamlet for my conclusion:
As Polonius says, “Though this be madness, yet there is method in’t.” In
practice, many writers do not follow this distinction, but it’s certainly worthy
of consideration.