If you want to say something with fewer words in English, it’s often possible to choose more specific vocabulary. When it comes to choosing your verbs, this can impact entire phrases.

Today, I’m looking at a common issue in my fiction editing work, where we have verbs that may be accompanied by information like adverbs, prepositional phrases and even object phrases that do not add any additional detail. These can be easily trimmed if you’re working to a word count, or just want to be more efficient in your language use!

How Verbs Attract Extra Words

This can seem like a picky point, but we often see or hear verbs accompanied by information that essentially repeats something already conveyed by the action. For example, ‘shout loudly’ does not tell more than ‘shout’, as a shout is, by definition, loud. We often add such words quite instinctively, I suspect because we intend to express a specific detail without stopping to think about how we’ve already successfully expressed it. Though tricky to tackle when speaking, we can certainly look out for this when editing our writing!

The rich range of vocabulary in English gives us all sorts of nuanced choices for words – but this isn’t necessarily an advanced topic. Sometimes it is just a case of better understanding or paying attention to what verbs really mean. Through this consideration, we can shorten many verb phrases.

I’ve broken this down into three groups of example verbs that we can look out for to trim extra words: verbs which tell us the manner of what is done, verbs which tell us the direction of what is done and verbs which can tell us what is being used (i.e. implied objects). In all these cases, the extra details shown below aren’t incorrect as such, but can draw unwanted attention the verb and phrasing, which might distract your reader or listener by making them question if the additional detail is important. So, unless you want to be specifically emphatic, trimming these unnecessary words can help keep your language clean and clear.

Verbs Describing Manner

When choosing your verbs (as with all vocab!), there are typically simpler/general options and more specific, descriptive options. When you modify a general verb with an adverb, it’s often possible to instead use a different verb.

For example:

• run fast -> sprint
• talk quietly -> whisper
• liked a lot -> adored

While general verbs and adverbs have their own uses, what’s useful to recognise here is that more specific verbs are less likely to need such descriptors. If you already have a verb that describes a certain manner of action, extra description is not necessary.

For example:

• sprint [quickly]
• whisper [quietly]
• adored [a lot]

By definition, a sprint is fast, a whisper is quiet, and adoration is already extreme, so we don’t need these describing words. You can add such descriptors for emphasis, but it’s best to be aware of when and why you are doing this.

Verbs Describing Directions

Similarly, certain action verbs can by their nature express a directional aspect, making prepositions and prepositional phrases unnecessary. Such verbs might look like phrasal verbs, and fall into common usage, but they’re often just collocations. To look out for verbs that express directions, consider if the action would be unclear without a preposition.

For example:

• rise up
• crouch down
• climb up
• shout out
• dive under

This is not quite as simple as the describing verbs above, as the necessity for prepositions depends on how we’re connecting to a sentence, but without context, of all the verbs above except dive would give us the same information without the preposition. Rise must always go up and crouch down, and a shout always goes out (baring the artistic inward shout of thinking!). Without a specific context, climb generally means up, though we can also climb down. Dive, however, does not suggest a specific direction on its own – while it typically implies down, a dive can also go forward, sideways or up, or in this example under something.

Without objects and obstacles, verbs suggesting a direction can easily be simplified without prepositions. Unless you want to describe such actions in relation to something, e.g. to crouch under a table, we can mostly understand the directions of many verbs on their own.

Note, these extra prepositions don’t just apply to physical directions – more abstract verbs also can work on their own without prepositions, such as ‘add in/on’ = ‘add’.

Verbs Implying An Object

Lastly, there are verbs which by their nature tell us what is used to complete an action. People often add an object or indirect object to such verbs where it is unnecessary. This can be a trickier point to look out, but mostly I find these relate to actions that use body parts, perhaps because the verbs don’t obviously describing a body part, but typically don’t need the extra detail. For example:

• nod his head
• blink her eyes
• kick with his foot
• wave her hand
• shrug his shoulders

Unless there is something surprising or important about the object being used with such verbs, again it can sound strange or long-winded to add them. Again while this may sound picky, consider if you were to say ‘He hammered with a hammer.’ or ‘She spoke with her mouth.’ – someone who’s really paying attention could be distracted by such phrasing. Such verbs only need objects when the action is being specifically directed towards something other than the general meaning.

• She waved a flag.
• He kicked with the toe of his foot.
• She shrugged one shoulder.

Otherwise, I’d suggest keeping those verbs clean!

As I always say, this all depends on context and there are no absolutes in language, but I hope this gives some starting points for thinking about we can be more efficient in our phrasing of verbs, cutting out unnecessary words for a crisper, clearer meaning. And if you can think of other similar examples, feel free to share them in the comments below!

In today’s new article I’m taking a look at the difference between ‘all right’ and ‘alright’, something which has come up a few times for me in my editing work and a point I’ve considered probably more than I should have in my own writing. It’s possible (and somewhat demonstratively correct) to reject ‘alright’ as incorrect outright, but I personally hold this instead as a good example of how and why the English language changes over time.

First, though, a quick definition: ‘all right’ as a phrase essentially means fine, okay, in good order, and can be used as an adjective, adverb or general interjection/intensifier. It’s taken on a rather nuanced nature, making it quite flexible – and it’s one of those expressions that can, depending on our context and understanding of the speaker, have an opposite application (like ‘fine’; with the right intonation it could mean ‘excellent’ or ‘disappointing’!).

Most likely because it’s acquired such a colloquial usage, however, the words have been compounded and a new spelling has emerged. 

Is it ‘all right’ or ‘alright’?

The simple answer to this question, to ensure you’re always correct, would be to always write ‘all right’. Dictionaries generally still have this phrase listed primarily as ‘all right’, and do not necessarily include ‘alright’ at all, and you will never be wrong to write it this way.

However, ‘alright’ has emerged as a variant spelling that encompasses the phrasal use of this expression in one word, and I would say it’s correct/acceptable to use ‘alright’ as long it’s being used for this meaning, i.e. as fine, okay etc.

I actually use ‘alright’ myself to convey this colloquial phrasing, as opposed to ‘all right’, spelt out, so to differentiate between the colloquial/descriptive use and a structure that more specifically refers to grouped nouns with a quality of ‘rightness’ – i.e. when we wish to say ‘everything in this group is correct’ (or alternatively, rightward leaning/directional). Having two separate spellings used consistently here can actually aid clarity, for example in an interpretation of these sentences:

• The students were all right. (They each had the correct answers/understanding.)
• The students were alright. (They were okay.)

Mostly, such sentences should be clear depending on the context anyway, but in the rare circumstances when these separate definitions might make the difference, I think it’s a difference worth having.

However, note that in the above examples, ‘alright’ would actually be incorrect in the meaning of the first sentence, whereas ‘all right’ could work for either, so, as I’ve said above, if want to be safe, you can only use ‘all right’ and it will always be correct.

This is a great example of language adapting, though, and popular usage giving us an alternative; a little tweak that is widely accepted can gradually help demonstrate the difference between a technical structure and a colloquial phrase.

It’s interesting to me because it seems obvious and natural to use ‘alright’ in this way, but actually it’s quite a modern style. Google’s Ngram viewer demonstrates usage of ‘alright’ having only gradually been adopted in the past two decades. So, it’s something that has emerged within my lifetime. If you look at that graph, though, it’s undeniably going up, and ‘alright’ is now in use almost half as much as ‘all right’, which is relatively in decline.

The bottom line here for me is that if someone wants to use ‘alright’, there’s no reason they shouldn’t, as long as it is applied for this specific meaning. Likewise, anyone would be free to always use ‘all right’. It would be really incorrect, though, to suggest that you must use one or the other, as we can plainly see that people are already using both alternatives, and while the dictionary might still favour ‘all right’, the English-speaking world is slowly adopting ‘alright’ too.

“For ever after” is a phrase I found curious recently, as it highlights some interesting points about how English works as a flexible, evolving language.

The phrase can be written in two different ways, changing the meanings of the words, with no real agreement on the “correct” form. Both forms roughly mean the same thing, and as such the way people say, write or understand this phrase is likely based on a chosen style, not a difference in intention or a logically assessed reasoning.

So, let’s explore the differences, the shifts in popularity and what that means for the way we look at such inconsistencies in English.

First up, what does the phrase mean? “For ever after” is an adverbial phrase (often regarded as an idiom) that essentially means “for all time from this point on”. It’s similar to the classic fairy tale ending “happily ever after”, or the word “forevermore”.

For example:

• They got married and lived together for ever after.
• The countries signed a treaty and were at peace forever after.

How should we write “for ever after”?

Let’s break down the two ways “for ever after” can be written. I’ve used the form that clearly separates the words so far, but this is not the one I’m most familiar with; I would typically write “forever after” myself, which is why I wanted to look into the phrase in more detail. We can essentially see this as using one of two different adverbials:

• for [ever after]
• [forever] after

As in “happily ever after”, “ever after” is an idiomatic phrase meaning “everything from this point on”; the first option makes sense in the regard “for the duration of everything from this point on”. There’s also a case to be made, somewhat loosely, that we could even write “everafter”, for a third option, “for everafter”, but that is not common or really accepted. Over time it might become more popular if “ever after” develops into a true compound word.

On the other hand, “forever after” uses the adverb “forever” to mean “all time”, in the same regard, “all the time after this point”. However, I’m picking at this a bit to show some sort of difference – it’s hard to actually form a definition for either form that wouldn’t work for the other. So we have different component words with slightly different meanings, but result in basically the same outcome.

What is the most common way to say “for ever after”?

While we can already fairly say either option is acceptable, what ultimately dictates “correct” English (that being the most easily accepted or understood) is popular use. Logically, I think there’s a strong case that “for ever after” makes most sense as it applies the idiomatic phrasing. Most likely the phrase will be used to affect that kind of idiomatic expression. However, “forever after” feels more right to me personally, mostly as it emphasises that longevity. Or maybe just because it looks neater to have two words instead on one. Either way, it’s perfectly acceptable to go on gut feeling with this, or with whatever you were first taught, or like the look of, and I think that says quite a lot about how the English language often works. No doubt people would argue for one form over another, but there’s no way to definitively settle on a superior, meaning we must accept both.

What we can now do, though, is look at the statistics of usage for more insights. One of the tools I use to analyse popular phrasing is Google’s Ngram Viewer, which analyses a huge database of writing from (currently) 1800–2019. You can enter phrases and compare how their popularity has changed. Here are the results for the three different forms of the phrase.

From this data, you can see that “forever after” has held a fairly common amount of usage, overtaking “for ever after” in 1888 and establishing itself as the more popular phrasing for the next 130 years. However, throughout the 19th century “for ever after” was much more popular, and its usage apparently dramatically declined. We can draw a few conclusions from this but the most obvious would seem to be that “for ever after” was probably used in a specific type of writing, which gradually faded – probably the sort of fairy tales and romances that first popularised “happily ever after” endings. With the decline of such books, the phrase itself was used less, while it would seem that the “forever after” style, which has remained fairly consistent, was less reliant on such trends. Perhaps “forever after” has longer been a staple in common usage, with “for ever after” more tied to a particular type of writing.

That’s a bit of speculation on my behalf but hopefully serves as an example of the sort of detail we can go into when considering the “correct” way to word something – and why it’s not necessarily something that depends on meaning or language logic!

I hope you found this interesting. Let me know your thoughts, and of course feel free to explore other similar examples in the comments!

I always find it interesting to look at ways that words connect, so we can see how one type of word might become another. I was struck by a specific area of this recently while editing a crime novel, which included a lot of compound nouns that stem from phrasal verbs.

As I’ve explored phrasal verbs a few times recently this seemed an interesting area to share. How and why do we form nouns from phrasal verbs?

Why do we form nouns from phrasal verbs?

Phrasal verbs have very specific meanings, which means that they can produce very specific nouns that reflect these meanings. There’s no general pattern or rule to exactly how, when or why this emerges or is possible, but I think it’s safe to say that when we have a phrasal verb that can be associated with a particular action or result, that action or result might eventually be labelled with a compound noun based on that phrasal verb.

This is quite common in computers, where we have such verbs as “log on” / “log in”, “log off”, “start up” and so on. To take the first example, we talk about logging in to a service, which may require personal information, your “login details”, or in shorter form, your “login”. So over time these phrasal verbs can take on noun forms. Mind, this isn’t necessarily how it always evolves: depending on the example, it’s quite possible a noun comes first and the verb follows later.

Aside from sentence structure clues, you can spot when these are nouns and not phrasal verbs because they’re often presented differently. Phrasal verbs typically consist of two or more words, which used in noun form become compound nouns. With compound nouns, we often use hyphens to make clear that they’re together. In time, the two words may then be joined to form one noun. As a general pattern, this is something that takes place over time: the older and/or more common a compound noun is, the more likely it is to become hyphenated and then combined.

So, let’s look at some examples.

Phrasal Verbs with Noun Forms

As I mentioned, this topic came to me while I was editing a crime novel, during which I started to note down the nouns derived from phrasal verbs. So I’ve put together a short list of words that are somewhat linked thematically! Here are some examples of phrasal verbs with noun forms:

• lead up to (phrasal verb: occur in the time before something) – lead-up (noun: an event/period of time preceding something else)
• come up / come down (phrasal verbs: to become elated/rise or to lose elation/fall) – come-up / come-down (nouns: the time/experience of rising or falling)
• clear out (phrasal verb: remove the contents of something to tidy it) – clear-out (noun: an event/time where something is tidied out)
• bust up (phrasal verb: damage something to make it end) – bust-up (a strong argument/fight that may end a relationship or badly damage someone)
• hand out (phrasal verb: to distribute something, typically by hand) – handout (noun: aid given to someone in need)
• catch up (phrasal verb: to meet/talk with someone not seen in a while, specifically to learn any news) – catch-up (noun: a meeting/conversation specifically to share news)
• write off (phrasal verb: to declare something irreparable) – write-off (noun: something that is beyond repair)
• lock up (phrasal verb: to make something secure, behind a lock) – lock-up (noun: a locked, secure room/place)
• pick up (phrasal verb: to collect/lift/carry something) – pickup truck (noun: a truck with a large bed for carrying things)
• set up (phrasal verb: to prepare something in advance) – set-up (noun: an event planned in advance, usually in the negative, i.e. a trap)
• look out (phrasal verb: to be careful/wary) – lookout (noun: someone who watches for problems)

That’s all for today, if you have any questions, ideas or other examples you’d like to share, please do so in the comments below.

I had an idea to discuss contronyms this month, which are a specific type of homonym, but I realised I don’t have an article on homonyms here. These are an interesting (and difficult) aspect of English, where we have a great many words that can either look or sound the same but have different meanings. Also related are words that sound the same but look different and have different meanings, or that look the same but can sound different,

Fortunately, I already had a short article summarising this, which was originally published on my creative writing website (now sadly gone). So, here’s an updated version of my guide to homonyms, heteronyms, homophones, homographs and heterographs, with a graphic at the bottom.

What’s in the name?

Firstly, to break down these five terms and make them easier to remember, it’s worth considering how they are formed.

The prefixes “homo” and “hetero” typically refer to “the same” or “different” in English. This is perhaps most commonly understood these days from reference to sexual interests (homosexual = same sex, heterosexual = different sex).

The suffix “-phone” refers to sound (like with telephone), so homophone and heterophone relate to pronunciation (the same or different).

The suffix “-graph” refers to writing or recording, so heterography and homograph refers to how the words are spelt (again, the same or differently).

What are homonyms?

Homonyms are two words that are spelt the same, and pronounced the same, but have a different meaning. For example, “right”. This can mean the direction (opposite of left) or to be correct.  There’s a lot of these crafty words in the English language, here are some more examples with two meanings (note they may actually have more than two meanings):

• bark: the sound a dog makes / the outer-surface of a tree trunk
• kind: type of something / nice
• match: an object to make fire / a sports event
• ring: to call on a phone / a circular object (e.g. jewellery)
• well: good / a hole where water is sourced

What are homophones and heterographs?

Next up, homophones. These are words with the same pronunciation but different meanings. These can be homonyms, with the same spelling, like “right” (and “right”), or heterographs, with different spellings, like “write” and “right”. These can also be phrases made up of more than one word, for instance “copywrite”, “copy right” and “copyright” (to write copy, to copy correctly or to legally own a creative right). These are technically heterograph homophones. The important thing is, they all sound the same.

When we see heterographs in writing, it can help separate two similar sounding words that have a different meaning, as the spellings may be very different,  like  through  and threw. However, when listening, it may be difficult to know which meaning is intended, as they sound the same.

What are homographs and heteronyms?

Homographs are words with the same spelling but different meanings. All homonyms are also homographs (so technically “right” is a homonym, a homograph and a homophone).

However, homographs can also be two words with the same spelling that are pronounced differently, for instance “read” in I love to read but I’ve read this book already. Or “bow” in The quality of the bow tied to the ship’s bow made them bow in respect. Homographs with the same spelling and different pronunciations and meanings are called heteronyms.

What does this mean for you?

A lot of the most common mistakes in the English language come from mixing up heterographs, which are the root of some very common confusions, such as the different uses of your and you’re, and there, they’re and their. Mixing up homographs can also lead to a lot of confusion in speech.

Once you are aware of how the same words can produce different meanings, however, you can look out for this. To help you see how these categories can be broken down, I’ve put together a little graphic that demonstrates the overlap between the different word types.

Use this knowledge wisely, to write the right words in future and right the writing you’ve already written.

I’ve had a few blog comments lately addressing how English is used or taught differently, and thought it would be a useful exercise to produce an article covering how we discuss varieties of a language. Some of the most active articles I have are ones where people offer different opinions on certain rules, inevitable as English has spread to so many different areas, so it’s definitely an area of interest.

I hope to look into specific different types of English in more detail eventually, but there are some great resources introducing language variations online already, so for now I’ve prepared a list of terms and examples with some links to where you can learn more.

Defining Language Variations

There are a handful of ways linguists categorise varieties of language; some definitions refer to word usage and rules, or merely to vocabulary, while others refer to the way language adapts culturally, in broader strokes. All of these terms, however, can cover variations in grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation. Below we’ll look at the following variety terms:

• Standard / Polite / Formal
• Colloquial / Informal
• Regional Dialect
• Social Dialect
• Lingua Franca
• Pidgin
• Creole
• Vernacular
• Patois
• Lingo
• Jargon
• Slang

Standard / Polite / Formal

We use the terms standard, polite and formal to refer to language that sticks to the rules and is essentially presented as the ‘proper’ form of English. In practice, this is not necessarily practical English, but rather the sort of English we’d expect to see in formal writing or polite situations. Standard English is what is generally taught where possible, but alternative forms may be taught in communities with developed variations.

Colloquial / Informal

Colloquial language is effectively anything that is not formal, often described as ‘spoken’ language. It is informal as the aim is to communicate rather than stick rigidly to rules, so it is where we see contractions and idiomatic language being used. There are countless varieties of this, and it is a blanket term that really covers all of the other terms below.

Regional Dialect

Regional dialects are varieties of language that emerge based on regionally specific use. There are many examples within the UK alone, from the broad differences between the English spoken in the North and South to the more specific, localised dialects, such as those spoken in certain cities, some of which have their own names (with Scouse from Liverpool, Geordie in Newcastle and Brummie in Birmingham to name just a few).

Social Dialect

Social dialects emerge like dialects, but within a specific class or culture, instead of a region (though they can be further developed to fit certain regions). This may also be referred to as a minority dialect, highlighting the variation is not the predominant use. A major example of this is African American Vernacular English.

Lingua Franca

A lingua franca is a common language used between people who speak different languages. As the full purpose is bridging gaps in communication, this can be very adaptable and therefore will not necessarily stick to traditional language rules. English is used as a lingua franca all over the world, more commonly in fact than it is used by native speakers, and in some cases may even be taught in a specific form to fit these needs, rather than as standard English. You can read more about this on Wikipedia here.

Pidgin

A pidgin is a simplified version of a lingua franca, where people trying to communicate across different languages develop their own form of communication. Though this technically makes it a lingua franca, it often some from merging two or more languages together rather than as something true to one common language. Pidgins can therefore develop their own vocabulary and rules that can be very independent of the original source languages.

Creole

A creole is an established form of pidgin, where a language developed from communicating over two or more languages is taken up by a culture as a native language. Aspects that make a creole different to pidgin or dialects is that it has it will have unique rules with a full range of functions, and may be taught as a mother tongue. Examples of English-developed creoles include Gullah in South Carolina and Georgia and Nigerian Creole. Another interesting example is Louisiana Creole, which derives from French but is used by Americans so may be interspersed with English.

Vernacular

Vernacular is the term used to describe language as it is used naturally by a specific people. What it describes can therefore vary depending on what we wish to specify: we could speak about the vernacular of a country or a smaller community within a city, or of a certain time and place (for example, we have a modern vernacular which would include vocabulary that would not be part of the vernacular of, for example, fifty years ago).

Patois

Patois is a term used to refer to minority, non-standard use of a language, so this could cover all dialects, creoles and pidgins, but this carries somewhat negative connotations as it implies an inferiority.

Lingo

Lingo is a term used to refer to any wording or phrasing that is specific to a certain group, including jargon or slang (see below). Lingo is roughly synonymous with argot and cant, both also referring to the language of specific groups.

Jargon

Jargon is the words and phrases that emerge to cover ideas with in a specific community, often when specialist terminology is required (for example technical terms in a profession or sport). In some cases this is necessary, where specialist activities require new terminology, but jargon can also be seen as negative, where it is used to separate others from a conversation or to create a superior appearance (as is commonly associated with business jargon).

Slang

Similar to jargon, slang is the language that emerges within a subgroup to describe new ideas, or to assign new words to existing ideas to develop a sense of identity. As with jargon, this can be exclusionary, though while jargon typically refers to specialisms, slang is more typically associated with social groups, for example the language of a younger generation. Extreme forms of slang may be used specifically to disguise conversation, such as rhyming slang.

I hope you’ve found this useful; varieties in language are fascinating areas. If you are interested in the development of language, and how it is used differently by different people, I strongly recommend looking into different vernaculars and creoles to see how other people speak. It can help to give you a stronger understanding of the rules of standard language when you see how it works when other people bend them!