advanced
 
Blogspublic

R. Scott Powell's - Watch The Language

This is a public Blog  publicRSS

Entry

    R Scott Powell
    Your pen is only as mighty as your words
    Entry posted December 9, 2009 by R Scott PowellElite Contributor, last edited January 19, 2012
    811 Views, 10 Comments
    Title:
    Your pen is only as mighty as your words
    Entry:

    The saying “The pen is mightier than the sword” rings true from ancient times to now.  However, more so now than then, the strength of your pen depends greatly on your mastery of words.  I will admit, I goof my words while typing quickly or forecasting my sentences while reviewing.  Recently I was caught red handed with one of the typo dreadnaughts of in the environmental world, contaminants (or how I spelled it contaminates).  I felt a little sheepish when it was pointed out, but that is why I recognize the need for peer or senior technical review.  So it prodded me ask everyone:

    More:

    What is your favorite word you like to catch or dreaded word that haunts your reviews?  Don’t just respond with the word, please share your reasoning with everyone.

     

    Contaminates vs. Contaminants

    This one generally arises under two separate conditions.  Either the professional does not know most people just say “contaminants” wrong (i.e. most people say “contaminat’s” ending the work on the “t”) and they try to spell it reflecting the shortened pronunciation; or it is a typo.  Basically, “contaminants” is the noun, and “contaminate” is the verb.  Wait, was there no “s” at the end of that verb?  Bingo!  Though the electronic dictionaries will allow the “s” at the end, it is not correct... generally.  Yes… if you were to say “My property contaminates his.”  That would appear to be a proper use of the term, but how often do professionals use it in that type of context?  It would be a safe bet, if you see the word “contaminates” it is incorrect.

     

    Ground Water vs. Groundwater

    This one still comes up once in a while, but Joe Derhake summarized it best in his blog Between a REC and Hard Place, Groundwater vs. Ground Water post.

     

    Soils vs. Soil

    Here is my irk.  I’ll get right to the point.  The word “soil” is a noun that can be singular or plural by definition.  Soil can consist of one or many parts.  The word “soils” should only be used for the specific task of distinguishing between different classifications of soil, or telling us how dirty your clothes have become (The oil at work soils my clothes).  99.9% of the time in professional writing we should be using the word “soil.”  Maybe, if you were writing a dissertation on soil classification could you get away with the word “soils” … maybe. 

     

    What is your favorite word play?

     

    Scott

    Comment

    • EdG
      posted December 10, 2009 by EdGElite Contributor

      Scott,

      This is one of the 'holier than thou' attorneys checking in to freely and openly admit to the world I cannot spell a thing and that I am openly embarrassed about it.  I have too many words that cause me issue.  While never formally diagnosed with dyslexia - I am sure it has a part in it.

      Lately I have been struggling with attorneys fees.  I have seen it in case law written as: attorney's fees, attorneys' fees, attorney fees.  I believe it's attorney's fees (and I was awarded it in a case recently...).

      My daughter asks me how to spell certain words - some I have to write down.  My guess is that we are not alone in this area - so take solace that I spell checked this message and relax - those that don't admit to it are truly the ones that should be embarrassed (oh and I misspelled solace and embarrassed).

      Ed

    • Scott J. Dahlgren
      posted December 10, 2009 by Scott J. DahlgrenContributor

      Ed, just for the record, you also misspelled thou (in "holier than tho") and this is just a friendly reminder that even spellcheck is not infallible.

    • EdG
      posted December 10, 2009 by EdGElite Contributor

      Thanks.  Keeping my holier side in check!

    • EdG
      posted December 11, 2009 by EdGElite Contributor

      Add thoU to my list.  Thankfully I can spell potato ...

    • dcrocker
      posted December 11, 2009 by dcrockerElite Contributor

      Scott,

      thanks for a great post. As someone wrote recently on a linkedin group:

      "if someone claims to be a brownsfield expert, he probably isn't."

      Dianne

    • Trey Hess
      posted December 12, 2009 by Trey HessMember

      I'm starting a "Ban the 'S' Brownfield Campaign."  The only time you should use the "S" is when you are referring to more than one brownfield.... Now, if I can get EPA to shake loose of its "BrownfieldS Program" and replace it with the "Brownfield Program."

    • LSchnapf
      posted December 16, 2009 by LSchnapfElite Contributor

      yes- "brownsfield" drives me crazy.

      I frequently get confused with the "i" for familar/similiar. Also have problems with the number of "c's" in occur.

      And I like "groundwater" but "surface water".  

      As far as Ed and I both being "holier than tho", I can only quote Dale Berra, the offspring of that noted american philosopher Yogi Berra who when asked how he and his father were similar, replied "Our similarities are very different":)

      This occurred shortly after Yogi told his troops to "Pair up in Threes"

      He probably got this from Casey Stengel who once ordered his players to "line up in alphabetical order according to height"  

      See, Ed, the Yankees can be both win and be amusing....it is indeed A Wonderful Life. 

       

       

       

    • EdG
      posted December 16, 2009 by EdGElite Contributor

      Yogi Berra was a genius - I seriously do not believe for a second he didn't know everything he said was anything more than magical. 

      So yes Virgina I suppose there is a Santa Clause.

    • klevenduski
      posted February 2, 2010 by klevenduskiMember

      I've noticed that Microsoft Word's Autocorrect will often change/update things while you are on a roll typing into a document.  This can be a good thing, as it will often fix 2 letters in a word that are reversed, but sometimes not, like when it wanted to substitute "Catholic" for "cathodic" in a Phase I report I was writing!!   When I go back and proofread things I often have to remind myself that it's not just my writing skills that make the document what it is.

      My company recently decided to change from "ground-water" to "groundwater" to follow the USGS format.  That seemed like a good thing at the time (that is how I was used to writing it before I worked here), but instead of removing the hyphen, it seems that the hyphen has just moved over.  What would previously have been written "ground-water monitoring well" has now become "groundwater-monitoring well", and so on.  I can't say I think this is better technical writing, I think it would be OK either with or without the hyphen.  And I think that a document with fewer hyphenated words always reads better and looks more professional, even if it is a technical report.

      That's my 2 cents for now.