That Doesn't Mean What You Think It Means: The 150 Most Commonly Misused Words and Their Tangled Histories

by Ross Petras, Kathryn Petras

An entertaining and informative guide to the most common 150 words even smart people use incorrectly, along with pithy forays into their fascinating etymologies and tangled histories of use and misuse.

Even the most erudite among us use words like apocryphal, facetious, ironic, meteorite, moot, redundant, and unique incorrectly every day. Don't be one of them. Using examples of misuse from leading newspapers, prominent public figures and famous writers, among others, language gurus Ross Petras and Kathryn Petras explain how to avoid these perilous pitfalls in the English language. Each entry also includes short histories of how and why these mistake have happened, some of the (often surprisingly nasty) debates about which uses are (and are not) mistakes, and finally, how to use these words correctly ... or why to not use them at all. By the end of this book, every literati will be able to confidently, casually, and correctly toss in an "a priori" or a "limns" without hesitation.

Genres: Nonfiction, Language, Writing, Reference, Adult, History, Education

208 pages, Hardcover

Published September 4, 2018

Reviews

[Scott · Rating 4 out of 5]

WORD POWER! :-)

I recall a grammar / language-arts teacher once saying that the complexities of the English language make it difficult to grasp if it's not a person's 'native tongue.' She probably would've liked this book.

Brother-and-sister writing team Kathryn and Ross Petras, with assistance from a trusty Oxford English Dictionary, take a witty look at some of 'the usual suspects' in the Americanized vernacular -- 1.) words that are often similar-sounding, but have different meanings such as flounder and founder and 2.) words that are unlike but are incorrectly used interchangeably like podium and lectern or 3.) words that are just commonly misspelled, as in copyright versus copywrite. It's a breezy little tome that will elicit some chuckles (one guess on why has the word 'oral' has lately fallen out of regular or proper usage) as it educates and entertains, especially when showing that long-running and/or respected newspapers and magazines have been routinely making these sorts of errors for years.

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is another great book on problematic areas of English language usage, to help pedants such as myself lose even more friends. I can't wait until Artificial Intelligence finally removes the stupidity element from language. It's frankly somewhat depressing to me to see how languages evolve because people lack the cognitive capacity to learn them. But someday Real Soon Now we should all have AI personal assistants that will monitor everything we read, write, hear, or say, and correct all the outgoing or incoming usage errors for us. While that may seem intrusive and scary (because it will be both, in spades), the alternative will be to signal to the whole world how dumb we are when all the AI-augmented humans will see our mistakes fully explained.

Perhaps my favorite part of reading a book like this is to learn about any mistakes I'm still making this late in life. I had already fixed a bunch before I got to this book - such as "begs the question" and "homing in" vs. "honing in" [sic]. But I didn't already know that "nauseous" refers to something that makes a person feel nauseated - so to say "I am nauseous" doesn't (or didn't until recently) mean what the speaker probably means. See nauseous vs. nauseated. Of course, I was led astray by the increasingly common use of "nauseous" to mean "nauseated" instead of "causing nausea".

When enough people make an error, it becomes "too big to fail" and eventually becomes "correct" - much to the anguish of pedants who read books like this one.

One problem with a book like this is that after reading it you will be seeing errors everywhere, and few people respond well to correction. That is, when the correction comes from a fellow human. That triggers all sorts of atavistic fears of social rejection and loss of "face" likely dating back to the harsh lives of our Stone Age ancestors. A loss of status in one's small tribal group was often fatal in the tough premodern world. Today's world is much, much softer, at least in the developed countries, and yet we still react to criticism like we react to snakes and spiders (another pair of ancestral fears that have become less relevant in real life for many people).

In contrast to correction from a human, which tends to result in drama, taking correction from a computer has little or no social implication and typically goes down more easily. Thus there is an outside chance that Real Soon Now, people will be taking corrections from their AI personal assistants, which will "know" and apply all the lessons from books like this one. And maybe then the world will become an AI-powered pedant's paradise.

[Matt Hooper · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a five on the Enneagram, few things irk me quite like hearing someone confidently use a word that doesn’t mean what they think it means.

“I could care less.” Could you? Because, if you can, you’re certainly not communicating what you think you are communicating.

A “grizzly” murder scene? Only if the culprit were a very specific species of bear.

“This restaurant is infamous for its deserts!” Unless the restaurant contains arid landscapes with a sordid past, then everything about that sentence is wrong.

Kathryn and Ross Petras’ “That Doesn’t Mean What You Think It Means” sets the record straight for 150 words that are commonly misappropriated, misspelled, and generally misused. Inside there's history, there's British vs. American English differences and idiosyncrasies, there's grammatical context – all in one compact volume.

Yours truly, an obsessive-compulsive snob with a journalism degree, was frequently chastened by the text, schooled on words I had never heard of or (looks around nervously) had been using incorrectly, myself.

Who knew, for example, that the correct term for the lower-48 United States was “conterminous” and not “contiguous”? I’ve had that wrong for 30 some-odd years. Contiguous refers to things touching one another, literally. Conterminous refers to things being grouped together within the confines of a boundary. Therefore, Washington state and North Carolina are conterminous (they exist within the boundary of the United States), but not contiguous (their borders do not actually touch).

If the above example intrigues you, then the other 149 entries are sure to please. For the sake of the sanctity of our language, and in order to not come off like an ass in conversation, check out this straight-forward and helpful manual for us English speakers.

[Adrian]

Two grammar experts explain how commonly confused words should be used. Some of the pairings they deal with are; effect/affect (always a tough one for me), appraise/apprise, compel/impel, discomfit/discomfort, farther/further, tortuous/torturous. Along the way they have a lot of fun with word play. I laughed out loud at least a dozen times. I realized how seldom this happens in my reading. I'm sure I'll be consulting this book in the future. Very good.

[Christian · Rating 2 out of 5]

While there are certainly a huge amount of fun etymological factoids in this book, overall it reeks of pedantry. Why two (!) presumably sound-minded adults would spend months of their precious time on this planet constructing a book that amounts to “Stop!! You’re using language wrong!! It’s not supposed to work like that!!” is beyond me. It’s a foregone conclusion that the authors are linguistic prescriptivists (or else hypocritical authors of the prescriptivist Bible) and that’s not cool. At one point they admonish Lewis and Clark for using the non-word “assend”, but excuse them for living in an era before computers, saying “in an era graced with advanced spell-checking programs, [we] should tenaciously stick with the proper spellings and usages.” I would hope that the authors of a book about etymology understand that language evolves, but it begs the question why they think language should stop evolving now. The most egregious example I noticed was "in regards to" vs. the correct "in regard to". First of all, really? And second, they claim that the incorrect "in regards to" is "not a real phrase", after spending paragraphs lamenting about its extremely common usage. Sounds like a real phrase to me.

All of that would be excusable if the book were written more competently. At one point they define the word “assure” as meaning “to reassure”, and I have no idea how that slipped past editing. Overall it’s a low-effort compendium of mistakes, most of which are perfectly understandable. The book happily points out the subtle difference between “amiable” and “amicable” with the same level of authority as it does “allusion” vs. “illusion”. If you have ever corrected someone on the usage of “amiable” vs. “amicable”, you should be shoved in a locker and have your lunch money taken.

And yes, I know I used “factoid” wrong. Call a cop.

[Susan Liston · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was relieved to find that I already knew the vast majority of these, but there were a few I didn't. (like podium vs lectern, but Barack Obama got it wrong, too!) Actually I shouldn't read books like this. The more mistakes I make the better, because the more I know, the nitpickier (is THAT a word?) and more obnoxious I become.

[Suzanne · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have been saying so many things wrong and I'm so embarrassed! I used the word "fortuitous" incorrectly THE DAY I STARTED READING THIS BOOK. AARRRGGGHHH.

[Donna]

This brother and sister author team describe themselves as "annoying grammar pedants," and they wrote an interesting book that other "word nuts" will find useful. They did a fine job of citing real world examples to criticize, and they use etymology, definitions, connotations, and standard usage to back up their claims. Even though the book is more about writing than speaking, I would have appreciated pronunciation notes with the definitions.

[Michelle · Rating 4 out of 5]

Authors missed a golden opportunity to call this "You keep using that word. I do not think that word means what you think it means."

[John Fitzgerald · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great book for word nerds!

[Paul · Rating 3 out of 5]

An enjoyable followup to You're Saying It Wrong, although not quite as enjoyable, perhaps because pronunciation is a harder thing to get right and easier/more fun to fight over than definition and etymology. But overall, another great mix of stuff I already knew (thus allowing me to feel superior to all of the idiots misusing these words) and stuff I didn't (thus giving me a small dose of humble pie) – plus a set of controversial entries that can only be classified as "words that do in fact mean what you think they do, but used to mean something different, and we think that's interesting."

The Petras siblings made a great two-book set well worth the purchase for any word nerd.

[Linda Aull · Rating 5 out of 5]

This little book is organized like an encyclopedia, but I read it cover to cover like a juicy novel. Learned some things, confirmed some things. #nerdcred

[Nathan Albright · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are some languages that have official language academies that officially tell what is and what is not permissible in a language.  English is not one of those languages, but rather is a language where individual creators of dictionaries, your OEDs and Websters and Johnsons, have attempted without official sanction to set the usage of the English language and also to describe the way the language has been used in the past as well as the present.  As a result of that lack of official sanction for prescriptivism, those who attempt to prescribe the use of certain words and expressions in English has tended to make writers seem as if they are cranky old people telling young ruffians to get off of their lawns while menacingly waving the books that they have written on the subject.  This book fits in with that general trend, as the authors themselves inveigh against the way that certain words are used, seeking to use history as a source of authority in defining what is and what is not an acceptable way to use a word.

In this book of about 200 pages 150 words or pairs of words (and at times even more words in a set) are set in context by the brother and sister authors, who use this as the opportunity to wag their finger at those who would misuse words largely because of mistaking similar-sounding ones or seeking to sound smarter than they really are and use words that are really out of their knowledge base.  In between the alphabetically organized word lists, which begins with a priori and goes to wet/whet your appetite, there are occasionally discussions of other issues, such as the e.g. and i.e. problem, the problem of strong verbs, problematic plurals from Latin and Greek words, the pronoun problem of I/me, etc., the who/whom problem, and the problem between lie and lay.  At times the authors even note that some words, like bimonthly, appear to have wildly inconsistent and even contradictory official uses that hinder understanding.  At other times, the author gets to clip the wings of those who are pretentious in using words that they do not fully understand and that have histories that provide reasons why such words came into the English language, mostly from French, Latin, and Greek.  

In general my own thoughts about this book and others like it is somewhat ambivalent.  On the one hand, I tend to use a lot of fairly elevated (and even pretentious) words but I strive to use them correctly, according to their history and meanings.  At the very least, I do not want to contribute to the lamentable tendency by which words are used more and more often and yet simultaneously less exactly and rigorously.  Yet at the same time this is a personal choice of my own, and it is difficult to wholeheartedly recommend a work that is written in a spirit like this one that strikes this reader as highly elitist.  Admittedly, this book is probably written for other linguistic elites who have chosen to use elevated language in its proper form and that might look down a little bit (or more than a little bit) on those whose language use is less accurate and informed.  In that sense, this book is likely preaching to the choir, because it is hard to imagine those whom this book twits as being interested in reading a book where someone else tells them how they should be using certain words that they mangle and misuse.  This book is written for those who likely already use most of these words correctly and wish to be thought of as better for doing so.

[Richard · Rating 5 out of 5]

True confession - growing up English was my least favorite subject in school, spelling tests were a nightmare, and I didn’t like reading books. So, you might ask, why would I be reading a book about word meanings? Well, just because I cannot spell them doesn’t mean that I don’t appreciate words.

I love educational books that define things in a page or two. I enjoy knowledge and trivia, especially when it comes in “bite sized” chunks. So books like; science explained, how does that work, who invented that are all titles that catch my eye.

The brother and sister team of Ross and Kathryn Petras have written an interesting, informative, and entertaining book about vocabulary. They jump right in to such issues as using who or whom, is it I or me, do I lie or lay, and what is it with all of these a, ae, i, and s plural endings?

Using I or me has been a mystery all of my life - even when I think I am using the correct word it often doesn’t sound right. When I ask people which I should use they start talking about subjective and objective pronouns and I am transported back to the aforementioned English classes. So you can only imagine my excitement when the authors gave me a “cheat” system for deciding whether it is I or me.

Most of this book is devoted to individual words or, more specifically, the difference between two commonly confused words. Their favorites are presented in alphabetical order so you can skip around if you are interested in a particular word. The Petrases give short but clear explanations and examples to illustrate the difference in meaning between commonly (and some uncommonly) used words. They often give the etymology of the word as well as how the accepted meaning has changed and evolved over time. Somewhat in disgust they sometimes have to give in and accept when the current common usage of a word is actually the opposite of what the word originally meant.

Is it appraise or apprise, begrudgingly or grudgingly, cliché or clichéd, flounder or founder, impending or pending, nauseous or nauseated, and the ever popular principal or principle. They even explain the difference between anchors away and anchors aweigh, which may come as a real surprise to you.

So whether you pride yourself on being a grammarian, are often confused about which word to use, or just like to have some good word trivia for your next cocktail party you will enjoy reading That Doesn’t Mean What You Think It Means. If fact, you might with to prepone your next reading session and get right into this book.

[Neil Pasricha · Rating 3 out of 5]

It’s been a while since we’ve added a book to our Enlightened Bathroom Reading series. This one makes the porcelain mantle. Lemme ask: Do you know the difference between imply and infer? Barter and haggle? Podium and lectern? Don’t worry! Neither does The New York Times, The Washington Post, or Barack Obama! Each of these 150 little (bathroom-sized) essays opens with a headline or speech excerpt by someone using the word wrong before a slightly-acidic-but-ultimately-empathetic explanation of the difference. So, for example, they’ve got a sliver of Obama’s eulogy for Senator Ted Kennedy where he says “We can still hear his voice bellowing through the Senate chamber, face reddened, fist pounding the podium…” and then chime in to say that, actually, “a podium is a raised platform where a speaker stands to deliver a speech, so Obama’s vivid image of a red-faced Ted Kennedy in a Senate speech pounding the podium makes for a surprisingly gymnastic congressional session.” Meanwhile, a lectern is the “raised, slanted stand where a speaker places notes for a speech.” Some writeups will illuminate, some you could write yourself, and others may trigger that “Oh, yeah, right, of course, of course" reflex. Petras and Petras (a high-flying brother-sister publishing business, I learned) do a good job of weaving everything together and they helpfully close each essay with the bolded dictionary definition – if you need to skim because your sister is banging on the door to use the shower, etc. Btw: “When you imply, you’re the speaker. When you infer, you’re the listener” and “When you’re bargaining over the price of a rug, you’re haggling… whereas bartering is trading, exchanging goods or services without using money.” No need to haggle over the price of this one. Fun vocabulary tuneup.

[Dan Trefethen · Rating 4 out of 5]

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” - Inigo Montoya, 'The Princess Bride'.

Without directly quoting, it's pretty clear the authors of this book had that famous quote in mind when they titled their book. It's apt. The book presents commonly misused words, in alphabetical order, and explains their sources and the way the meanings have changed over time. They usually present two words that are commonly confused with each other. You may be a grammar pedant and use all these words correctly, but I guarantee you'll learn something about where they came from.

It's a fun read, and the lighthearted approach and humor is entertaining, but the research is solid. They use Google Ngram Viewer to assess the degree to which a word is used improperly online. Language changes, and especially quickly on the Internet.

Funnily enough, the word that Montoya refers to, 'inconceivable', is not included. The meaning is pretty clear, it's just that Vizzini has a narrow view of what is conceivable. Obviously, if you can think of something, you can conceive of it. Which makes very little in this universe (except the universe itself, perhaps) inconceivable.

[Ella · Rating 4 out of 5]

A really fun book to read. I had to resist carrying it around to shove in people's faces, but once I controlled myself, it's a great little book. Also, it doesn't just repeat things we already know (but usually forget unless we are carefully proofreading.)

I read a section a day for the length of my library loan then renewed it and reread parts, hoping I will remember some. At the same time I read Yes, I Could Care Less: How to Be a Language Snob Without Being a Jerk and they are nicely complementary.

[Elyssa · Rating 2 out of 5]

Here I was thinking I'd have a fun, Bill Bryson-esque audiobook about the hot mess that is the English language. Instead, I found myself listening to two pretentious English majors who have nothing better to do with their time than correct people's English. (And, don't get me wrong, misuses drive me bonkers.) These people need a sense of humor and an understanding that English is a living language that changes with the times. And, despite us having grammar and spell check, we all know that AI has it out for us. I most identified with the "Torturous/tortuous" entry. This book is as boring as its cover.

[Erikka · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was pretty good. I liked all the etymology discussions that help explain why we make these mistakes. I feel like there were a few that were a bit nitpicky, and several I was shocked anyone would be so dumb to make the mistake, but there were also several I've made myself. It was a quick and fun read for any grammar or language nerd.

[Andrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

It’s good, but most of the “commonly misused words” I already knew how to properly use. I mean, who seriously confuses emigrate and immigrate? I dunno...

But it’s a fun book that can be flipped open on occasion and perused for a quick refresher on some beautiful words and their meanings. Not recommended to read cover to cover.

[Jean · Rating 4 out of 5]

A quick little reference guide on all those terms you've struggled with. There are some instances where the authors get a little snooty that terms have evolved over the years from their original definition into something new because of common misuse (and they believe for the worse). Some are common homophone mistakes. Interesting evolution of language.

[Tony Hinde · Rating 3 out of 5]

For me, about half of the examples detailed in the book taught me something. That's a pretty good strike rate and it's easy to skip those entries that have nothing to offer. The structure is decent; start with a quote misusing the term/terms, offer the accepted meaning along with their history and language roots... throw in some color commentary. Nice.

[Sue · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great 'dip-inter', I'll be going back again and again. to this useful llttle word book. Full of quotable sections and interesting examples, this book is a reference book for those of us who are word nerds or just like a good anecdote or two for dinner parties.

[John Majors · Rating 4 out of 5]

I like books about words, so this was a fun one. If you like those kinds of books, you'll like it to, otherwise skip it. There are a couple of helpful sidebars about when to use i or me, and who or whom. Again, if you find that of interest, then read on.

[Kim · Rating 5 out of 5]

Captivating...

I have always loved books on the origin of words and word phrases. This one is a must read for anyone else who finds such things interesting. Lots of fascinating information. Two thumbs up.

[Lisa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Oddly enough, it seemed to need an editor every once in a while. Perhaps this was done on purpose. If I had read my own copy and not a library copy, I'd have marked it up so I could remember where the editor was needed. Interesting and entertaining despite the need for an editor.

[Shelley · Rating 4 out of 5]

I not only learned the proper use of common words, but I enjoyed the ride as well.

[Emeelu · Rating 3 out of 5]

entrance exam reviewer

[Candace · Rating 2 out of 5]

Pedantic accurately describes the tone. I found it preachy and sanctimonious, but intentionally, so if etymological perfection appeals to you, grab this one.

[Asiuol K · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book has blown my mind.