Kris Spisak's Blog, page 36

Writing Tip 172: The Free Gift?

This poor lady. She’s waiting for her free gift. Did it come today? Will it be as exciting as she hopes it will be? My fingers are crossed for her!

Have you ever had to pay for a gift? If so, the giver was kind of terrible and you were a bit too naïve.

Shouldn’t gifts be free? And if something is given for free, isn’t it pretty much a gift?

Visit today for your free gift; Earn a free gift with your purchase; Discover your free gift inside.

We all know people get excited about the word “free,” but this redundancy simply isn’t necessary. Use “free” or use “gift,” but never both combined. Please.

At what point in history did “free gift” come to be?

The answer may surprise you. “Free gift” isn’t a modern, gimmick-inspired invention. This redundant pairing of words goes back a long, long time. In fact, according to Google Books’ Ngram Viewer, it’s been used as far back as the 1500s.

One of the most commonly discussed older uses of “free gift” is actually in the King James Bible (completed in 1611). Romans 5:16 refers to the “free gift” of God in this translation, even though—interestingly enough—there is no Greek word for “free” within the original line. In other words, these early translators added the redundant word to make a stronger point.

Fascinating? Absolutely. Enough so to make me okay with seeing “free gift” all over the place? Not at all.

Of course, I know someone out there is going to argue that no gift is ever truly free, so the distinction is indeed needed. But whoever you are, sir, I disagree.

The post Writing Tip 172: The Free Gift? appeared first on Kris Spisak.

Writing Tip 171: “Wind” vs. “Wend” (and the hijacking of “Went”)

[image error]

Is this frog wending his way home?

Have you ever wondered why the past tense of “go” is “went”? No? Well, are you at least a little bit curious now that I pose the question?

It all goes back to a word-hijacking centuries ago, when there were two major terms one could use to denote traveling from place to place. One could “go,” or one could “wend.” “Going” was more direct; “wending” was sometimes less so, but I’ll get back to that.

Returning to the confusion between “wind” and “wend”…

Yes, “wend” is a real word, not a typo.

Yes, it is the correct word in the idiom “to wend one’s way.”

Yes, it’s a bit old-fashioned, but it pops up enough that it’s worth a conversation.

Here’s the difference between “wind” vs. “wend”:

“To wend” is to choose a path and then pursue it; it is to go in a specified direction often by an indirect route; it is to move from one place to another.
“To wind” (for the sake of this conversation) is to move in a curving line or path.

A party guest might wend across a crowded room; a detour might wend through lesser-known city streets.

A road might wind down a mountain; stripes might wind around a ball.

The difference is subtle but present. Do you see it? Admittedly, this is one you have to think about. Using “wend” properly is not for the grammatically faint of heart.

And what about that past tense of “go”?

Well, “wend” has fallen out of fashion a few times in its eight-hundred-year history, but its past tense didn’t always recede with it. The past tense of “go” used to be “gaed” or “oede,” depending on one’s geography. The past tense of “wend,” however, was “went,” following the same linguistic pattern as “send” and “sent.” As “wend” fell from popularity, “go” hijacked its past tense. Seriously. Word drama, folks.

Hence now, the past tense of “go” is “went.” Poor “wend” was forced to have a new past tense, “wended,” when it had its revival in everyday speech.

Who said there was anything dull about the history of language?

Happy writing!

The post Writing Tip 171: “Wind” vs. “Wend” (and the hijacking of “Went”) appeared first on Kris Spisak.

Writing Tip 170: “Dived” vs. “Dove”

A character in my new work-in-progress just dove into this beautiful mountain lake in Slovakia. Yes, she dove. With all her clothes on. A ribbon from her grandmother coming loose from her hair when she hit the water. (Have I mentioned I’m excited about my new book?)

What flows more naturally to your ear? “She dived into the water” or “she dove into the water”? One of these constructions has been correct since roughly 1300, and the other was first misused about two centuries ago. Do you know the difference? And more importantly, does it even matter?

“Dived” was the original past form of the word “dive,” and to many (largely British) audiences, it still holds the title as the correct form.
“Dove” came to be in the 1800s, following the past-tense pattern of the verb “drive/drove.” Today, “dove” is the more common form in both speech and written text in the U.S. and Canada.

But just because it’s more common, is it right?

Oh, you know “right” is such a flexible word when it comes to the transition of language. However, it is indeed considered acceptable and preferred to most audiences on this side of the Atlantic.

Thus:

William Shakespeare dived into his work.
Mark Twain dove into the Mississippi.

What do you think?

The post Writing Tip 170: “Dived” vs. “Dove” appeared first on Kris Spisak.

Writing Tip 169: “Centered Around” vs. “Centered On”

It’s all about finding your center. (Or something like that.)

Where is the center? In the middle, right? So how can the center be around something? Aren’t these two concepts  a bit of an oxymoron when placed next to each other? You’re either at the center or you’re around. Will everyone please stop saying and writing “centered around” now?

If you really feel the word “around” calling to you, try out “revolve around” instead. Maybe it will make you feel better.

“Centered on” is the proper phrase here. (At least in American English. Oddly, in other parts of the world “centre on” and “centre around” have become largely interchangeable—though “centre on” is still regarded as the proper form of the phrase. But note the spelling change of “centre” in these cases. Unless you’re spelling it like the Brits, stick to “center on.”)

It’s rare the Americans are the stricter grammarians, isn’t it?

The post Writing Tip 169: “Centered Around” vs. “Centered On” appeared first on Kris Spisak.

Writing Tip 168: “Instill” vs. “Install”

If your grandmother installed certain values in you, I have to ask… are you an android of some sort? Was your kindness downloaded? Was your generosity transferred via a floppy disk? Do you see the difference a single letter can make?

To instill means to establish something in one’s mind over time. You instill feelings, ideas, or attitudes.
To install means to put in position (physically or digitally) ready for use. You install programs, equipment, or machinery.

Catching an “instill” vs. “install” typo always makes me want to ask probing questions. But I won’t. I’ll hold back. At least, I’ll try really, really hard to.

Beep. Beep. Boop. Happy writing.

The post Writing Tip 168: “Instill” vs. “Install” appeared first on Kris Spisak.

Writing Tip 167: Straight vs. Curly Quotation Marks

If you are blessed with curly, you want straight; if you’re blessed with straight, you want curly. Oh, wait, you think I’m talking about hair? Nope. Let’s talk quotation marks, folks.

Someone recently asked, “Grammar mistress, what’s the difference between straight vs. curly quotation marks?” A couple things about this question make me happy. First, I’m kind of digging “grammar mistress,” and second, these are the subtleties that no one ever seems to talk about. So let’s talk about it.

This explanation goes back to typewriter much like the single vs. double space formatting change. With limited keys available, typewriters only used straight quotation marks ( “ ) no matter whether any given mark was used at the start or end of a quote. This differs from the curly quotation marks ( “ ” ) that you most commonly see surrounding quotations in printed materials and typed on computer keyboards today.

Curly quotation marks are more legible on the page and clearer in purpose. Many people recommend using them at all times (since typewriters are no longer an issue), and I largely agree.

Straight quotes still do have a purpose from time to time, though, because of awkward styling issues online. Some people prefer straight quotations in email or on the web so that no funky “&quot” or “&ldquo” type tags will accidentally interfere with their text. Have you ever noticed that code jargon online? Curly quotation marks are sometimes the culprit.

And after all this, are you suddenly wondering how do you even make a straight quotation mark in Microsoft Word?

The answer to this final question is simple. After you type a quotation mark in Word, it automatically auto-formats to become a curly quotation mark. Before pressing any other key, press CTRL + Z (undo). It’s like magic. That quotation mark will lose its auto-formatting and become a plain old straight quotation mark. Did I teach you a fancy trick?

That’s all from the grammar mistress today. Did I mention I liked that title?

The post Writing Tip 167: Straight vs. Curly Quotation Marks appeared first on Kris Spisak.

Interview on Mind the Dog Writing Blog

“I first met author, editor, and blogger Kris Spisak at the 2015 James River Writers Annual Conference in downtown Richmond, Virginia, when I attended her Friday Master Class, “Nuts and Bolts: Editing your Work like a Pro.” She was an energetic, dynamic, and knowledgeable presenter, and I found the information she conveyed so helpful that the following day, instead of eating alone, I overcame the introverted tendency so stereotypical of writers and attended her Lunch and Learn, ‘Ask an Editor,’ an informal, conversational lunch meeting during which writers could ask Ms. Spisak questions about the writing, revising, and publishing process (or sundry other topics)…”

Read the full interview at Amanda Sue Creasey’s “Mind the Dog Writing Blog, and thanks so much, Amanda, for asking me to participate!

 

 

The post Interview on Mind the Dog Writing Blog appeared first on Kris Spisak.

Writing Tip 166: “Dragged” vs. “Drug”

This poor guy. Was he dragged or drug? (Or drugged?)

If drag racing happened yesterday, would it be drug racing? No, that’s not right, though there’s definitely a bad pun of a book idea somewhere in there.

Using “drug” (as a verb as well as in other forms) can cause some issues. Sure, it’s commonly used in the South and Midwest, but unless you’re writing a regional piece or giving a character a distinctive speech pattern, stick with the standard form of “dragged.” By using the correct word, readers—regardless of their geographical location—will stay with you. The last thing you want your readers to do is pause and debate your word choice, right?

The post Writing Tip 166: “Dragged” vs. “Drug” appeared first on Kris Spisak.

Writing Tip 165: “Shoe-in” vs. “Shoo-in”

Shoo, shoe. Stop photobombing the picture! (A shoo-in for a photography award? Probably not.)

Are we talking about wedging a foot into a doorway or about shooing something in a certain direction? Do you know?

When this expression is spelled wrong, it’s almost justifiable. To “get a foot in the door” is a common idiom, and this one could be related… But it’s not.

“Shoo-in” is the correct form, first appearing in the early twentieth century in regards to horse-racing. A horse was a “shoo-in” if it was a “sure thing.”

If you remember the old song “Shoo, fly. Don’t bother me,” you can understand this use of “shoo.” You want to shoo a fly away from your picnic. However, you could also shoo it toward something. Shoo it toward the finish line perhaps? This may not be a common case with flies, but with horses, politicians, and so much more, being a “shoo-in” is a familiar turn of phrase.

Maybe you don’t write “shoo-in” often, but when you do, make sure you leave your feet out of it.

The post Writing Tip 165: “Shoe-in” vs. “Shoo-in” appeared first on Kris Spisak.

Writing Tip 164: “Fowl swoop” vs. “Foul Swoop” vs. “Fell Swoop”

You know who’s tired of this confusion? This guy. (If there was ever a bird to know his Shakespeare, this is the one.)

Perhaps with birds of prey, you might have a “fowl swoop.” Perhaps with gangly young basketball players, you might have a “foul swoop.” But when you’re looking for what to call a sudden, swift action, “fell swoop” is the correct form. How many of you are writing this one right?

You can blame Shakespeare for the confusion. His use of “fell swoop” utilizes an old form of “fell,” which means “savage” or “ruthless” (as in “felony”), but the exact line in Macbeth where he uses it does also mention chickens. Fell. Fowl. Writer foul?

What do you think?

 

The post Writing Tip 164: “Fowl swoop” vs. “Foul Swoop” vs. “Fell Swoop” appeared first on Kris Spisak.