Between You and I: A Little Book of Bad English

Like most people this time of year, you have decided that your top priority for the New Year is to improve your spoken and written English. It's not at all unusual, for important issues are at stake:

Is it "arrogate" or "abrogate"? Does it matter?

Are you adverse to "averse"? Can you be?

Do you wonder whether to use "like" or "as"?

Whether you're eager to strangle the next guy who says "flaunt" when you know damn well he means "flout," or you'd simply like to know more about how to avoid commonly made mistakes in English, Between You and I: A Little Book of Bad English is for you. Happily, author James Cochrane makes it less of an ordeal than the high school English classes you probably remember with discomfort.

So, does "adverse" really differ from "averse?" Let Cochrane tell you:

adverse, averse These two words are easily confused but should not be. Adverse means 'unfavourable', 'hostile', 'harmful', as in 'adverse weather conditions', an 'adverse reaction', 'adverse effects'.

Averse can refer only to the inclinations of a person and means 'disinclined', 'reluctant'. It stems from Latin words meaning 'turned from', and for that reason it was once correct English to say averse from; averse to is now much more usual.

In sixty-six words, Cochrane explains how to avoid this increasingly frequent mistake, employing no technical grammar terms. He gives each word's meaning, a few examples, and that's it: his point is clearly made.

He manages to do the same thing throughout the book, and the subtitle is accurate: at 126 pages, this really is a little book. Many readers will devour it immediately when it arrives from amazon.co.uk, as I did.

James Cochrane was educated in Edinburgh and Cambridge and is therefore open to charges of elitism. I don't know how he would respond, but I would defend him. He's no pedant, no obscurantist — but he does believe the English language should be defended, and defend it he does. BBC presenter John Humphrys writes, in his Introduction to the book:

Like any organism, language changes. It lives in the real world and gets knocked about from time to time. It adapts in order to survive. Look up almost any word in the Oxford English Dictionary and you can follow the journey that it has taken over the centuries, changing its precise meaning as it twists and turns with the passing of time. Often its present meaning bears little relationship to its original one. It is silly to imagine that this evolution can be halted. It is even sillier to try.

But that is different from hoisting the white flag and surrendering to linguistic anarchy. A degree of discipline is not a constraint; it is a liberation. The more clearly we are able to express ourselves, the less room there is for ambiguity. The more elaborate and the more precise our vocabulary, the greater the scope for thought and expression. Language is about subtlety and nuance. It is powerful and it is potent. We can woo with words and we can wound. Despots fear the words of the articulate opponent. Successful revolutions are achieved with words as much as with weapons.

I'm with Humphrys: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” for example, could never have inspired a successful revolution unless someone thought that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" meant something — something important, something which could be communicated. Mark Twain put it well: “The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter — it’s the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.”

Cochrane is no simple reactionary, either: as Humphrys indicates, he is willing to recognize that the English language will continue to change and must change. His entry for "suffice to say" begins, "If one is going to use this rather old-fashioned expression...." My sense is that he does not quite approve of using old-fashioned expressions.

In this, Cochrane is part of a fine tradition: most able defenders of good English are not purists or pedants. William Zinsser, in On Writing Well, argued against uncritical acceptance of slang, but then asserted that "rip off" was a valuable, and needed, addition to the language.

The reader will find that occasionally, spelling, usage, and punctuation vary from American standards: Between You and I is, after all, a British book by a British author. But almost everything is applicable to American English as well as British English, and the differences are minor.

What is not minor is the insightful manner with which Cochrane handles "as and like," "between you and I," and one of my own pet peeves, "begging the question." In the entry on "dangling participles, " he declares, "Once recognised, they should be instantly zapped by the laser beam of common sense." I like the resort to common sense. Good, plain English (the term Humphrys employs below) is just that: good and plain.

Cochrane handles euphemisms such as "friendly fire," "collateral damage," and another evil I despise, the monstrosity "irregardless." The reader is led, surely and deftly, through "who and whom," "imply and infer," and the use of the hyphen.

Near the end of his Introduction, John Humphrys writes:

There are so many threats to the survival of good, plain English that it is not easy to be optimistic. E-mail has a great deal to answer for. Punctuation is no longer required and verbs are abandoned with the speed of a striptease artiste late for her next performance. Text messaging is worse — much worse. Yet I have seen it suggested that students be allowed to use 'texting' abbreviations in examinations. Ultimately, no doubt, we shall communicate with a series of grunts — and the evolutionary wheel will have turned full circle.

There are a few things we know about the near future:

• George Bush won't veto any entitlement bills in an election year.

• The pestilence of "reality" television is here to stay.

• This book won't be featured on Oprah.

These serve to remind us of human foibles and human weakness. One other thing we know, though, is that there are those fighting for standards and distinction and nuance in English, and among them is the quite capable warrior James Cochrane and his (one hopes) many readers. You could be one of them — and then you won't be saying, "between you and I..."


Craig Ceely is a corporate trainer, writer, and humorist in the wilds of west Texas. He claims the three trades are related. His blog, The Anger of Compassion, is updated at least semiannually. There is no truth to the rumor that he is writing an epic poem about commas.