List Of English Words With Disputed Usage

Some English words are often used in ways that are contentious among writers on usage and prescriptive commentators. The contentious usages are especially common in spoken English, and academic linguists point out that they are accepted by many listeners. While in some circles the usages below may make the speaker sound uneducated or illiterate, in other circles the more standard or more traditional usage may make the speaker sound stilted or pretentious.

For a list of disputes more complicated than the usage of a single word or phrase, see English usage controversies.

A

* aggravate – Some have argued that this word should not be used in the sense of "to annoy" or "to oppress", but only to mean "to make worse". According to AHDI, the use of "aggravate" as "annoy" occurs in English as far back as the 17th century. In Latin, from which the word was borrowed, both meanings were used. Sixty-eight percent of AHD4's usage panel approves of its use in "It's the endless wait for luggage that aggravates me the most about air travel." M-W mentions that while ''aggravate'' in the sense of "to rouse to displeasure or anger by usually persistent and often petty goading" has been around since the 17th century, disapproval of that usage only appeared around 1870. RH states in its usage note under ''aggravate'' that "The two most common senses of ''aggravate'' are 'to make worse' and 'to annoy or exasperate.' Both senses first appeared in the early 17th century at almost the same time; the corresponding two senses of the noun ''aggravation'' also appeared then. Both senses of ''aggravate'' and ''aggravation'' have been standard since then." Chambers cites this usage as "colloquial" and that it "is well established, especially in spoken English, although it is sometimes regarded as incorrect."
* ain't – originally a contraction of "am not", this word is widely used as a replacement for "aren't", "isn't", "haven't" and "hasn't" as well. While ''ain't'' has existed in the English language for a very long time and is a common word in many dialects in both North America and the British Isles, it is not a part of standard English, and its use in formal writing is not recommended by most usage commentators. The above notwithstanding, ''ain't'' is used by educated speakers and writers for deliberate effect or as part of a cliche, what ''Oxford American Dictionary'' describes as "tongue-in-cheek" or "reverse snobbery", and what ''Merriam-Webster Collegiate'' calls "emphatic effect" or "a consistently informal style".
* alibi – Some argue this cannot be used in the non-legal sense of "an explanation or excuse to avoid blame or justify action." AHD4 notes that this usage was acceptable to "almost half" of the usage panel, while most opposed the word's use as a verb. M-W mentions no usage problems, listing the disputed meaning second to its legal sense without comment. OED cites the non-legal noun and verb usages as colloquial and "orig nallyU.S.". Chambers deems this use "colloquial".
* alright – An alternative to "all right" that some consider illiterate but others allow. RH says that it probably arose in analogy with other similar words, such as ''altogether'' and ''already''; it does concede the use in writing as "informal", and that ''all right'' "is used in more formal, edited writing". AHD4 flags ''alright'' as "nonstandard", and comments that this unacceptance (compared to ''altogether'' etc.) is "peculiar", and may be due to its relative recentness (''altogether'' and ''already'' date back to the Middle Ages, ''alright'' only a little over a century). Chambers refers to varying levels of formality of ''all right'', deeming ''alright'' to be more casual; it recommends the use of ''all right'' "in writing for readers who are precise about the use of language".
* also – Some contend this word should not be used to begin a sentence. AHD4 says "63 percent of the Usage Panel found acceptable the example 'The warranty covers all power-train components. Also, participating dealers back their work with a free lifetime service guarantee. See also ''and'' and ''but'' (below).
* alternative – Some argue that ''alternative'' should be used only when the number of choices involved is exactly two. While AHD4 allows "the word's longstanding use to mean 'one of a number of things from which only one can be chosen' and the acceptance of this usage by many language critics", it goes on to state that only 49% of its usage panel approves of its use as in "Of the three alternatives, the first is the least distasteful." Neither M-W nor RH mentions any such restriction to a choice of two. Chambers qualifies its definition as referring to "strictly speaking, two, but often used of more than two, possibilities".
* a.m./p.m. – These are abbreviations for the Latin adverbial phrases ''ante meridiem'' ("before noon") and ''post meridiem'' ("after noon"). Some argue that they therefore should not be used in English as nouns meaning "morning" and "afternoon"; however, such use is consistent with ordinary nominalization features of English. AHD4 lists adjectival usage with "an A.M. appointment" and "a P.M. appointment". RH gives "Shall we meet Saturday a.m.?" without comment. Also, the National Institute of Standards and Technology contends it is incorrect to use 12 a.m. or 12 p.m. to mean either noon or midnight.
* amidst – Some speakers feel it is an obsolete form of amid. ''Amidst'' is more common in British English than American English, though it is used to some degree in both.
* amongst – Some speakers feel it is an obsolete form of among. "Amongst" is more common in British English than American English, though it is used to some degree in both.
* among/ amongst and between – The traditionalist view is that ''between'' should only be used when there are only two objects (or people) for comparison; and ''among'' or ''amongst'' should be used for more than two objects (or people). Most style guides and dictionaries do not support this advice, saying that ''between'' can be used to refer to something that is in the time, space or interval that separates more than two items. M-W says that the idea that ''between'' can be used only of two items is "persistent but unfounded" and AHD4 calls it a "widely repeated but unjustified tradition". The OED says "In all senses, ''between'' has been, from its earliest appearance, extended to more than two". Chambers says "It is acceptable to use ''between'' with reference to more than two people or things", although does state that ''among'' may be more appropriate in some circumstances.
** ''Undisputed usage'': I parked my car between the two telegraph poles.
** ''Undisputed usage'': You'll find my brain between my ears.
** ''Disputed usage'': The duck swam between the reeds. (Undisputed if there are exactly two reeds)
** ''Disputed usage'': They searched the area between the river, the farmhouse, and the woods.
** ''Undisputed usage'': We shared the money evenly amongst the three of us.
** ''Disputed usage'': We shared the money between Tom, Dick, and me.
** ''Undisputed usage'': My house was built among the gum trees.
* amount – Some argue ''amount'' should not be substituted for ''number''. They recommend the use of ''number'' if the noun is countable and ''amount'' only if it is uncountable. While RH acknowledges the "traditional distinction between ''amount'' and ''number'', it mentions that " though objected to, the use of ''amount'' instead of ''number'' with countable nouns occurs in both speech and writing, especially when the noun can be considered as a unit or group ''(the amount of people present; the amount of weapons)'' or when it refers to money ''(the amount of dollars paid; the amount of pennies in the till)''. (see also ''less'')
** ''Disputed usage'': I was amazed by the amount of people who visited my website.
** ''Undisputed usage'': The number of people in the lift must not exceed 10.
** ''Undisputed usage'': I was unimpressed by the amount of water consumed by the elephant.
* and – Some argue that sentences should not begin with the word ''and'' on the argument that as a conjunction it should only join clauses within a sentence. AHD4 states that this stricture "has been ridiculed by grammarians for decades, and ... ignored by writers from Shakespeare to Joyce Carol Oates." RH states "Both ''and'' and ''but'', and to a lesser extent ''or'' and ''so'', are common as transitional words at the beginnings of sentences in all types of speech and writing"; it goes on to suggest that opposition to this usage "... probably stems from the overuse of such sentences by inexperienced writers." ENCARTA opines that said opposition comes from "too literal an understanding of the 'joining' function of conjunctions", and states that any overuse is a matter of poor style, not grammatical correctness. COED calls the usage "quite acceptable". Many verses of the King James Bible begin with ''and'' (though this could be regarded as a Hebraism), as does William Blake's poem '' And did those feet in ancient time'' (a.k.a. ''Jerusalem''). Fowler's Modern English Usage defends this use of ''and''. Chambers states that "Although it is sometimes regarded as poor style, it is not ungrammatical to begin a sentence with ''and''." See also also (above) and but (below).
* anticipate – Although the ''expect'' sense is accepted by 87% of the Usage Panel, some prescriptivists insist that ''deal with in advance'' is the only correct use. Acceptance of the ''forestall'' sense has dropped to 57%.
** ''Undisputed usage'': We anticipated the coming winter by stocking up on firewood.
** ''Disputed usage'': We anticipated a pleasant sabbatical year.
* anxious – Some argue that this word should only be used in the sense of "worried" or "worrisome" (compare "anxiety"), but it has been used in the sense of "eager" for "over 250 years"; 52% of AHD4's Usage Panel accepts its use in the sentence "We are anxious to see the new show of contemporary sculpture at the museum." Also, it suggests that the use of ''anxious'' to mean "eager" may be mild hyperbole, as the use of ''dying'' in the sentence "I'm dying to see your new baby." RH states bluntly that "its use in the sense of 'eager' ... is fully standard." M-W defines ''anxious'' as "3 : ardently or earnestly wishing <anxious to learn more> / synonym see EAGER" Chambers gives "3 very eager • ''anxious to do well.''"

B

* barbaric and barbarous – ''Barbaric'' applies to the culture of barbarians and may be positive ("barbaric splendor"); ''barbarous'' applies to the stereotypical behavior of barbarians and is negative ("barbarous cruelty"). This is standard English usage. However, M-W equates the third meaning of "barbaric" with the third of "barbarous", that is, "mercilessly harsh or cruel"; COD11 and Chambers list "savagely cruel" and "cruel and brutal; excessively harsh or vicious", respectively, as the ''first'' meanings for "barbaric". Only AHD4 disallows this usage, and without comment.
** ''Undisputed''. The environment of the venue was barbaric.
** ''Undisputed''. Terrorism is barbarous.
** ''Disputed''. Capital punishment is a disgusting, barbaric measure.
* begging the question – In logic, ''begging the question'' is another term for ''petitio principii'' or arguing in a circle, in other words making assumptions in advance about the very issue in dispute. It could also be understood as "beggaring the question", i.e. making a beggar of the question.
:It is now often used to mean simply "raising the question" or "leading to the question". The latter usage does not match the usual pattern (e.g. "begging ''for'' money", "begging ''for'' mercy"), which would suggest "begging for the question".
:* ''Undisputed''. You argue that Christianity must be true because the Bible says so. Isn't that begging the question?
:* ''Disputed''. You want to go to the theatre. That begs the question which day we should go.
* but – Some argue that if ''and'' should not be used to begin sentences, then neither should ''but''. These words are both conjunctions; thus, they believe that they should be used only to link clauses within a sentence. AHD4 states that "it may be used to begin a sentence at all levels of style."

C

* can and may – Some argue that ''can'' refers to possibility and ''may'' refers to permission, and insist on maintaining this distinction, although usage of ''can'' to refer to permission is pervasive in spoken and very frequent in written English. M-W notes: "''Can'' and ''may'' are most frequently interchangeable in senses denoting possibility; because the possibility of one's doing something may (or can) depend on another's acquiescence, they have also become interchangeable in the sense denoting permission. The use of ''can'' to ask or grant permission has been common since the 19th century and is well established, although some commentators feel ''may'' is more appropriate in formal contexts. ''May'' is relatively rare in negative constructions (''mayn't'' is not common); ''cannot'' and ''can't'' are usual in such contexts." AHD4 echoes this sentiment of formality, noting that only 21% of the Usage Panel accepted ''can'' in the example "Can I take another week to submit the application?". For its part, OED labels the use of ''can'' for ''may'' as "colloquial".
* comprise – ''Comprise'' means "to consist of". A second meaning, "to compose or constitute", as in " comprised of", is sometimes attacked by usage writers. However, it is supported as sense 3 along with a usage note in M-W. AHD5 notes: "Our surveys show that opposition to this usage has abated but has not disappeared. In the 1960s, 53 percent of the Usage Panel found this usage unacceptable; by 1996, the proportion objecting had declined to 35 percent; and by 2011, it had fallen a bit more, to 32 percent." ''Collins'' gives a usage note: "The use of ''of'' after comprise should be avoided: the library comprises (not of) 500 000 books and manuscripts". Some usage writers further say to use comprise only for exhaustive inclusion. Reuters suggests "Use only when listing all the component parts of a whole".
** ''Undisputed usage'': The English Wikipedia comprises more than five million articles.
** ''Undisputed usage'': More than five million articles are comprised in the English Wikipedia.
** ''Disputed usage'': The English Wikipedia of more than five million articles.
** ''Disputed usage'': The English Wikipedia is of more than five million articles.
** ''Disputed usage'': More than five million articles comprise the English Wikipedia.
** ''Disputed usage'': Diatoms comprise more than 70% of all phytoplankton.
** ''Disputed usage'': "Those in the industry have mostly scoffed at the young, inexperienced Carter and the rest of the high school pals that comprise the company."
** ''Disputed usage'': "Both the union and the league are many individuals, ..."
** ''Disputed usage'': "The committee is several NBA owners, including committee chair Clay Bennett of Oklahoma City."
* contact – First used in the 1920s as a transitive verb meaning "to get into contact or in touch with (a person)", AHD5 notes that its usefulness and popularity have worn down resistance. In 1969, only 34 percent of the Usage Panel accepted its use, but in 1988, 65 percent of the Panel accepted it in the sentence ''She immediately called an officer at the Naval Intelligence Service, who in turn contacted the FBI''. In 2004, 94 percent accepted contact in this same sentence.

D

* deprecate – The original meaning in English is "deplore" or "express disapproval of" (the Latin from which the word derives means "pray to avert evil", suggesting that some event would be a calamity). The word is now also used to mean "play down", "belittle" or "devalue", a shift that some disapprove of, as it suggests the word is being confused with the similar word ''depreciate''; in fact, AHD4 states that in this sense ''deprecate'' has almost completely supplanted ''depreciate''; however, a majority of the dictionary's Usage Panel approved this sense. Its use with the approximate meaning '' to declare obsolescent'' in computer jargon is also sometimes condemned.
* diagnose – Cochrane (2004) states that to "diagnose omeonewith a disease" is an incorrect usage of the verb ''diagnose'', which takes the physician as subject and a disease as object (e.g. "to diagnose cancer"). In American English, according to AHD4 and M-W, the sense of "diagnose omeonewith a disease" is listed without comment or tag; however, for its part, RH does not list such a usage, with or without comment. For British English, COD11 offers "identify the medical condition of (someone): ''she was diagnosed as having epilepsy'' (2004); this usage, however, did not appear in editions as recently as the 1990s. Chambers does not offer this sense at all.
** ''Disputed usage'': Mr. Smith was diagnosed with diabetes.
** ''Undisputed usage'': The doctor diagnosed diabetes.
* different – Standard usage in both the UK and USA is "different from" (on the analogy of "to differ from"). In the UK, this competes with "different to" (coined on the analogy of "similar to"). In America, it competes with "different than" (coined on the analogy of "other than"). "Different to" is also found in Irish, South African, Australian, and New Zealand English.
** ''Undisputed usage'': The American pronunciation of English is different from the British.
** ''Disputed usage'': The American pronunciation of English is different to the British.
** ''Disputed usage'': The American pronunciation of English is different than the British.
* disinterested – Standard usage is as a word for "unbiased," but some have also rendered it synonymous with "uninterested".
** ''Undisputed usage'': As their mutual best friend, I tried to remain disinterested in their argument so as not to anger either.
** ''Disputed usage'': The key to attracting a member of the opposite sex is to balance between giving attention to him or her and appearing disinterested.
* due to – The adjectival use of ''due to'' is undisputed. Its adverbial use, however, has been a subject of dispute for many years, as witnessed by several (especially U.S.) dictionary usage notes that in the end designate it as "standard." William Strunk, in his ''Elements of Style'', labelled the disputed adverbial use of ''due to'' as "incorrect." Although the first (1926) edition of Fowler condemned the adverbial use as "common ... only ... among the illiterate", the third (1996) edition said, "Opinion remains sharply divided, but it begins to look as if this use of ''due to'' will form part of the natural language of the 21C., as one more example of a forgotten battle." ''Due to'' is frequently used in place of ''by'', ''from'', ''for'', ''with'', ''of'', ''because of'', and other prepositions and prepositional phrases. Undisputed synonyms for ''due to'' are ''caused by'' and ''attributable to''.
** ''Disputed usage'': He died due to cancer. ''(He died of cancer.)''
** ''Disputed usage'': Due to the end of the Second War, circumstances altered profoundly. ''(With the end of the Second War, circumstances altered profoundly.)''
** ''Undisputed usage'': His death was due to cancer.
** ''Undisputed usage'': Many thought the problem was due to mismanagement.

E

* enormity – Frequently used as a synonym for "enormousness" or "immensity", but traditionally means "extreme wickedness". According to AHD4, this distinction has not always occurred historically, but is now supported by 59% of the dictionary's Usage Panel. COD11 states that ''enormity'' as a synonym for ''hugeness'' "is now broadly accepted as standard English." Although Chambers lists "immenseness or vastness" as a meaning, it says it "should not be used" in that sense, commenting that it is encountered often because the word ''enormousness'' is "awkward"; it recommends using instead another word, such as ''hugeness, greatness,'' etc.
** ''Disputed usage'': The enormity of the elephant astounded me.
** ''Traditional usage'': The enormity of Stalin's purges astounds me.

F

* farther and further – Many adhere to the rule that ''farther'' only should refer to matters of physical distance or position, while ''further'' should be reserved for more abstract usages involving time or degree (as well as undisputed descriptions of ''moreover'' and ''in addition'').
** ''Disputed usage'': San Jose is further from L.A. than Santa Barbara.
** ''Disputed usage'': L.A. was a couple of hours farther from home than I expected.
** ''Disputed usage'': If her fever increases any farther, I will call the doctor.
** ''Undisputed usage'': I would like to discuss the issue further at a later time.
* fortuitously – Used by some interchangeably with ''fortunately'', strictly speaking ''fortuitousness'' is a reference to an occurrence depending on chance. M-W notes that use of the word in the sense of "fortunate" has been standard for at least 70 years, and notes that the sense of "coming or happening by a lucky chance" is virtually unnoticed by usage critics.

G

* gender – ''Gender'' is often used interchangeably with ''sex'' in the sense of the biological or social qualities, ''male'' and ''female''. It is never used to refer to sexual intercourse.
**''Gender'' traditionally refers to grammatical gender, a feature in the grammar of a number of different languages. Some argue that its use as a euphemism for ''sex'' is to be avoided as a genteelism; Fowler (p. 211) says it is used "either as a jocularity ... or a blunder."
** ''Sex'' and ''gender'' can be used in different but related senses, with ''sex'' referring to biological characteristics and ''gender'' to social roles and expectations based on sex. Use of ''gender'' as interchangeable with or as a replacement for ''sex'' may confuse readers who draw this distinction. ''See gender identity, gender role.''

H

* hoi polloi – The question surrounding ''hoi polloi'' is whether it is appropriate to use the article ''the'' preceding the phrase; it arises because ''οἱ'' (''hoi'') is the Greek word for "the" in the phrase and classical purists complain that adding ''the'' makes the phrase redundant: "the the common people". Foreign phrases borrowed into English are often reanalyzed as single grammatical units, requiring an English article in appropriate contexts. AHD4 says "The Arabic element ''al-'' means 'the', and appears in English nouns such as ''alcohol'' and ''alchemy''. Thus, since no one would consider a phrase such as ''the alcohol'' to be redundant, criticizing ''the hoi polloi'' on similar grounds seems pedantic."
* hopefully – Some argue this word should not be used as an expression of confidence in an outcome; however, M-W classes ''hopefully'' with other words such as ''interestingly'', ''frankly'', and ''unfortunately'' (which are unremarkably used in a similar way) as disjuncts, and describes this usage as "entirely standard". AHD4, however, notes that opposition to this usage by their usage panels has grown from 56% to 73%, despite support for similar disjuncts (such as 60% support for the use of ''mercifully'' in "Mercifully, the game ended before the opponents could add another touchdown to the lopsided score"). AHD4 opines that this opposition is not to the use of these adverbs in general, but that this use of ''hopefully'' has become a " shibboleth". OED lists this usage without any "colloquial" or other label, other than to say "Avoided by many writers". See also the discussion of ''hopefully'' as a dangling modifier. One investigation in modern corpora on Language Log revealed that outside fiction, where it still represents 40% of all uses (the other qualifying primarily speech and gazes), disjunct uses account for the vast majority (over 90%) of all uses of the word.
** ''Disputed usage'': "Hopefully, I shall be spared the guillotine", the prisoner thought.
** ''Undisputed usage'': Hopefully, the prisoner approached the guillotine. His hope was misplaced.
* humanitarian – The ''Compact Oxford Dictionary'' from 1996 has a usage note criticizing use of ''humanitarian'' as in ''humanitarian disaster'', saying "the adjective ''humanitarian'' is often used inaccurately by reporters, e.g ''This is the worst humanitarian disaster within living memory'', as if ''humanitarian'' meant 'of or relating to humanity, though the current entry given by OxfordDictionaries.com has a more tempered commentary: "The primary sense of humanitarian is 'concerned with or seeking to promote human welfare.' Since the 1930s, a new sense, exemplified by phrases such as ''the worst humanitarian disaster this country has seen'', has been gaining currency, and is now broadly established, especially in journalism, although it is not considered good style by all". Most dictionaries are implicitly neutral, giving no sense covering this usage but neither any usage comment criticizing it. However, besides the current OxfordDictionaries.com entry, Random House Dictionary, the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, and the Macmillan Dictionary all give senses for the use in ''humanitarian disaster''.

I

* impact – A large majority of the AHD Usage Panel has disapproved of the use of the verb meaning "to have an effect" since the early 1980s. Even in its 2001 survey, 85 percent of the Panel rejected the intransitive use in the sentence ''These policies are impacting on our ability to achieve success'', and 80 percent rejected the transitive use in the sentence ''The court ruling will impact the education of minority students''.
* ironic – Irony refers to an incongruity between what is expected and what actually occurs, especially if what actually occurs thwarts human wishes or designs. People often misuse ''ironic'', applying it to events and circumstances that are simply '' coincidental'', '' improbable'', or '' unfortunate''. In AHD's 1987 survey, 78 percent of the Usage Panel rejected the use of ''ironically'' in the sentence ''In 1969 Susan moved from Ithaca to California where she met her husband-to-be, who, ironically, also came from upstate New York''. By contrast, 73 percent accepted the sentence ''Ironically, even as the government was fulminating against American policy, American jeans and videocassettes were the hottest items in the stalls of the market'', where the incongruity can be seen as an example of human inconsistency.

L

* lay and lie – ''Lay'' is a transitive verb, requiring a direct object. ''Lay'' and its principal derivatives (''laid'', ''laying'') are correctly used in these examples: ''Now I lay me down to sleep. The chicken is laying an egg.'' ''Lie'' is an intransitive verb and cannot take an object. ''Lie'' and its principal derivatives (''lay'', ''lain'', ''lying'') are correctly used in these examples: ''My mother lies '' ot'' lays''' down after meals. I fell asleep as soon as I lay '' ot'' laid''' on the sand. The bills had lain '' ot'' laid''' there all week. I was lying '' ot'' laying''' in my nest when she rang.''·
* less – Some argue that ''less'' should not be substituted for '' fewer''. Merriam-Webster notes "The traditional view is that ''less'' applies to matters of degree, value, or amount and modifies collective nouns, mass nouns, or nouns denoting an abstract whole while ''fewer'' applies to matters of number and modifies plural nouns. ''Less'' has been used to modify plural nouns since the days of King Alfred and the usage, though roundly decried, appears to be increasing. ''Less'' is more likely than ''fewer'' to modify plural nouns when distances, sums of money, and a few fixed phrases are involved <''less'' than 100 miles> <an investment of ''less'' than $2000> <in 25 words or ''less''> and as likely as ''fewer'' to modify periods of time <in ''less'' (or ''fewer'') than four hours>."
**''Disputed usage'': This lane 12 items or less.
** ''Undisputed usage'': We had fewer players on the team this season.
** ''Undisputed usage'': There is less water in the tank now.
**
* like and as – Some object to the use of ''like'' as a conjunction, stating it is rather a preposition and that only ''as'' would be appropriate in this circumstance. M-W, however, cites ''like'' use as a conjunction as standard since the 14th century, and opines that opposition to it is "perhaps more heated than rational" (see M-W's entry
like [7, conjunction
/nowiki>">, conjunction">like [7, conjunction
/nowiki>). AHD4 says "Writers since Chaucer's time have used like as a conjunction, but 19th-century and 20th-century critics have been so vehement in their condemnations of this usage that a writer who uses the construction in formal style risks being accused of illiteracy or worse", and recommends using ''as'' in formal speech and writing. OED does not tag it as colloquial or nonstandard, but notes, "Used as conj[unction]: = 'like as', as. Now generally condemned as vulgar or slovenly, though examples may be found in many recent writers of standing." Chambers lists the conjunctive use as "colloquial".
** ''Undisputed usage''. He is an American as am I.
** ''Undisputed usage''. He is an American like me.
** ''Undisputed usage''. It looks as if this play will be a flop.
** ''Undisputed usage''. This play looks like a flop.
** ''Disputed usage''. He is an American like I am.
** ''Disputed usage''. It looks like this play will be a flop.
* literally – Some argue ''literally'' should not be used as a mere emphatic, unless the thing to which it refers is actually true. It is used to disambiguate a possible metaphorical interpretation of a phrase. M-W does not condemn the second use, which means "in effect" or "virtually", but says "the use is pure hyperbole intended to gain emphasis, but it often appears in contexts where no additional emphasis is necessary".
** ''Disputed usage'': The party literally went off with a bang. o, it did not, unless there was an actual loud noise.** ''Undisputed usage'': I literally ran more than 25 miles today. I ran a marathon.
* loan – The use of ''loan'' as a verb meaning "to give out a loan" is disputed, with ''lend'' being preferred for the verb form. AHD4 flatly states " e verb loan is well established in American usage and cannot be considered incorrect"; M-W states "... loan is entirely standard as a verb". RH says "Sometimes mistakenly identified as an Americanism, ''loan'' as a verb meaning "to lend" has been used in English for nearly 800 years"; it further states that objections to this use "are comparatively recent". Chambers defines the verb ''loan'' as "to lend (especially money)". OED merely states "Now chiefly U.S.", and COD11 includes the meaning without tag or comment.
** ''Undisputed usage'': I lent him some money.
** ''Undisputed usage'': Fill out the paperwork for a loan.
** ''Disputed usage'': I loaned him some money.

M

* meet – Some state that as a transitive verb in the context "to come together by chance or arrangement", ''meet'' (as in ''meet (someone)'') does not require a preposition between verb and object; the phrase ''meet with (someone)'' is deemed incorrect. Chambers flags this usage "US"; RH allows it in the sense of "to join, as for conference or instruction: ''I met with her an hour a day until we solved the problem.''" On the other hand, none of M-W, AHD4, or COD11 entertains this usage. NOTE: In the sense of fulfilling prerequisites or criteria (''We met with the entry requirements''), or that of encountering (''Our suggestions may meet with opposition; the soldiers met with machine-gun fire''), the verb phrase ''meet with'' is not in dispute.
** ''Disputed usage'': I will meet with you tonight.
** ''Undisputed usage'': I will meet you tonight.
* momentarily – Traditionally, ''momentarily'' means "for a moment", but its use to mean "in a moment" is disputed. M-W and RH give this latter usage a standard entry without comment, while OED and Chambers tag it "N.Amer." AHD5 has a usage note indicating that 68% of their Usage Panel deems this usage "acceptable". See also List of commonly misused English words#M.
** ''Disputed usage'': Ladies and gentlemen, the captain wishes to inform you the plane will be in the air momentarily.
** ''Undisputed usage'': The flash from the atom bomb momentarily lit up the night sky.

N

* nauseous – Traditionally ''nauseous'' means "causing nausea" (synonymous with "nauseating"); it is commonly used now as a synonym for "queasy," that is, having the feeling of nausea. AHD4 notes the traditional view, stating that 72% of the Usage Panel preferred ''nauseated'' over ''nauseous'' to mean "affected with nausea"; however, 88% of that same panel preferred ''nauseating'' to ''nauseous'' to mean "causing nausea"; in other words, a maximum of only 28% prefers ''nauseous'' in either case. It also states that in common usage, ''nauseous'' is synonymous with ''nauseated''. M-W, however, asserts that " ose who insist that nauseous ... is an error for nauseated are mistaken". Both M-W and AHD4 accept that ''nauseous'' is supplanting ''nauseated'' for "feeling nausea", and in turn being replaced by ''nauseating'' for "causing nausea" in general usage; they only differ on the correctness of the change. RH states "The two literal senses of nauseous ..appear in English at almost the same time in the early 17th century, and both senses are in standard use at the present time. ''Nauseous'' is more common than ''nauseated'' in the sense 'affected with nausea', despite recent objections by those who imagine the sense to be new." CHAMBERS lists the sense of causing nausea first and affected with nausea second, while COD11 gives the affliction first and causation second; both dictionaries list the entries without comment. OED goes further, tagging its "nauseated" usage as "Orig nallyU.S.", but demoted its "nauseating" usage to "literary". OED also notes that the original (now obsolete) sense of the word in English was "inclined to sickness or nausea; squeamish". Curiously, this oldest seventeenth-century meaning (inclined to nausea), while distinct from the disputed twentieth-century usage (afflicted by nausea), more closely resembles the latter than it does the prescribed meaning (causing nausea).
** ''Undisputed usage'': That smell is nauseous.
** ''Disputed usage'': That smell is making me nauseous.
** ''Undisputed usage'': That smell is nauseating.
** ''Undisputed usage'': That smell is making me nauseated.
** ''Obsolete usage'': You should not invite him to go fishing next week, as he is quite nauseous.
** ''Obsolete usage'': As she was a nauseous woman by nature, she avoided fishmongers' and butchers' shops.

O

* overly – Fowler notes that some editors regard this as an Americanism. The American source M-W's ''Webster's Dictionary of English Usage'', 1989, eventually settles on accepting it, but has this to say: "Bache 1869 and Ayres 1881 succinctly insulted contemporaries who used this word, calling them vulgar and unschooled. Times have changed: modern critics merely insult the word itself. Follett 1966, for example, claims that overly is useless, superfluous, and unharmonious, and should be replaced by the prefix over-. Bryson 1984 adds that 'when this becomes overinelegant ... the alternative is to find another adverb  ..." The prefix ''over-'' is safer, and accepted by all: "He seemed over-anxious." M-W, AHD4, and RH include the word without comment, and OED notes only "After the Old English period, ''rare'' (outside Scotland and North America) until the 20th cent." In most cases "too" or "excessively" would be better choices than "over-".

P

* pleasantry originally meant a joke or witticism (as in French ''plaisanterie''). It is now generally used to mean only polite conversation in general (as in the phrase "exchange of pleasantries").
* people and persons – Today, all major style guides recommend ''people.'' For example, the Associated Press and the New York Times recommend "people" except in quotations and set phrases. Under the traditional distinction, which Garner says is pedantic,* ''persons'' describes a finite, known number of individuals, rather than the collective term ''people''. This debate raged towards the end of the 19th century. "Persons" is correct in technical and legal contexts.
** ''Disputed usage'': There are 15 people registered to attend.
** ''Undisputed usage'': There are countless people online at this moment.
** ''Undisputed usage'': The law makes special provision for children and young persons.
** ''Undisputed usage'': In Christian theology there are three persons in the Trinity.
* presently – Traditionally, ''presently'' is held to mean "after a short period of time" or "soon". It is also used in the sense "at the present time" or "now", a usage which is disapproved of by many, though in medieval and Elizabethan times "presently" meant "now" (but in the sense of "immediately" rather than "currently"). RH dates the sense of "now" back to the 15th century—noting it is "in standard use in all varieties of speech and writing in both Great Britain and the United States"—and dates the appearance of the sense of "soon" to the 16th century. It considers the modern objection to the older sense "strange", and comments that the two senses are "rarely if ever confused in actual practice. ''Presently'' meaning 'now' is most often used with the present tense ''(The professor is presently on sabbatical leave)'' and ''presently'' meaning 'soon' often with the future tense ''(The supervisor will be back presently)''." M-W mentions the same vintage for the sense of "now", and that "it is not clear why it is objectionable." AHD4 states that despite its use "nowadays in literate speech and writing" that there is still " lingering prejudice against this use". In the late 1980s, only 50% of the dictionary's Usage Panel approved of the sentence ''General Walters is … presently the United States Ambassador to the United Nations''. COD11 lists both usages without comment; CHAMBERS merely flags the sense of "now" as "N Amer, especially US".
** ''Disputed usage'': I am presently reading Wikipedia.
** ''Undisputed usage'': I will be finished with that activity presently.

R

* raise and rear – Some people argue that ''raise'' should not be used to mean an upbringing of a being, since ''raise'' originally meant to cause something or someone to rise, and ''rear'' meant to bring up something or someone. Although ''raise'' was formerly condemned in this sense, it may now be considered standard, at least with regard to animals, and is common at least informally with regard to human children.
** ''Disputed usage'': You rear hogs, but you raise children.
** ''Disputed usage'': You raise hogs, but you rear children.
** ''Undisputed usage'': You rear hogs, and you rear children.
* raise and rise – According to traditional rules of English grammar, "raise is almost always used transitively", whereas "rise is almost exclusively intransitive in its standard uses". However, because of their similar meanings, they may be used by many informal speakers as though they were interchangeable.
** ''Disputed usage'': The elevator was raising.
** ''Disputed usage'': The elevator was being risen.
** ''Undisputed usage'': The elevator was rising.
** ''Undisputed usage'': The elevator was being raised.
* refute – The traditional meaning of ''refute'' is "disprove" or "dispel with reasoned arguments". It is now often used as a synonym for "deny". The latter sense is listed without comment by M-W and AHD4, while CHAMBERS tags it as colloquial. COD11 states that "Traditionalists object to he use of ''refute'' as ''deny'' but it is now widely accepted in standard English." However, RH does not mention this use at all. ''Refute'' is also often confused with rebut; a '' rebuttal'', in formal debate terms, is a counter-refutation, and it also has a specific legal sense, though like ''refutation'', the word has taken on the informal and disputed meaning of ''denial''.
* relatively – Literally meaning "compared with", some now use ''relatively'' to mean "moderately" or "somewhat" (perhaps in the sense of "compared to the average or to the expectation"). AHD4 does not list this usage at all; M-W has apparently blended the two usages into one.
** ''Disputed usage'': That man was relatively annoying.
** ''Undisputed usage'': Though relatively harmless when compared with dimethylmercury, mercury (II) oxide is still quite toxic.

S

* Scottish, Scots and Scotch – Formerly, "Scotch" was used as an alternative for "Scots" or "Scottish". The current convention is as follows:
** "Scottish" for most purposes, including people, animals, and things in general.
** "Scots" also for people, and for identifiably human matters and institutions (e.g., '' the Scots'', ''Scotsmen''; ''Scots Law'' (capitalised); ''the Scots language'', which is never "the Scottish language"; rarely ''Scots culture'', which is more commonly ''Scottish culture''). It appears in combining form in '' Scots-Irish''. The '' Scots pine'' is named after Scotland, though not limited to it.
** "Scotch" is sometimes (and decreasingly) used for foods produced in Scotland (e.g., ''Scotch salmon'', ''Scotch tomatoes''; more commonly ''Scottish''), and always for '' Scotch whisky'' (never "Scottish whisky"). It also appears in '' Scotch bonnet'', ''Scotch egg'', '' Scotch broth'' and the '' scotch doubles'' tournament format (which is usually lower-cased); and in the '' Scotch Game'' or ''Scotch Opening'' in chess. ''Scotch'' is otherwise best avoided, especially as applied to people, as Scots themselves consider it offensive, including the archaic ''Scotchmen''.
:There is also the unrelated verb '' scotch'' (also lower-cased), as in the following example from Shakespeare's ''Macbeth'':
:* ''Undisputed usage'': "We have scotched the snake, not killed it."

* seek – This means "look for", but is sometimes used to mean "try" or "want". The latter usage is criticised by Fowler in the entry "Formal Words".
** ''Disputed usage'': "... we did seek to resolve the Iraq crisis by peaceful means ... those who seek to emulate his legacy of murder ... the Conservatives seek to undermine that future ..."
:* ''Undisputed usage'': "Seek and ye shall find."

T

* than – ''Than'' is the subject of a longstanding dispute as to its status as a preposition or conjunction.
* they – Originally the third person plural pronoun, but sometimes used with a singular meaning. It may be used to refer either to an indefinite individual, or to a specific individual of unknown, unspecified, or non-binary gender. This singular usage has traditionally been considered informal but is becoming more accepted in formal writing. For example, ''The Washington Post'' in 2015 deemed it permissible as a last resort. The Chicago Manual of Style in 2017 acklowledged its growing popularity but still recommended avoiding it when possible.
** ''Disputed usage'': A person is rude if they show no respect for their hosts.
** ''Undisputed usage'': One is rude if one shows no respect for one's hosts.
** ''Undisputed usage'': It is rude not to show respect for hosts.
* thusly – ''Thusly'' (AHD4 suggests) was originally coined by educated writers to make fun of uneducated people trying to sound genteel. The word "thusly" appears with no associated usage notes in M-W; COD11 tags it as "informal", with the entry ''thus'' tagged as "literary or formal". CHAMBERS does not list the word at all, and it is unknown in British usage. MAU considers it a nonword and laments that it appears in otherwise respectable writing. However, ''thusly'' has diffused into popular usage. Some people accept it as an adverb in its own right, while others believe thus should be used in all cases.

U

* unique – Some usage critics and style guides have argued that ''unique'' means only "sole" or "without equal". The AP Stylebook says "it means one of a kind. Do not describe something as ''rather unique'', ''most unique'', or ''very unique''" but most dictionaries do give a third meaning: "unusual", which can be qualified by, ''quite'', ''very'', ''somewhat'', as in "The theme of the party was somewhat unique" (see ''comparison''). M-W has a usage note under its entry for "unique", which says in part "Many commentators have objected to the comparison or modification (as by somewhat or very) of unique, often asserting that a thing is either unique or it is not. Objections are based chiefly on the assumption that unique has but a single absolute sense, an assumption contradicted by information readily available in a dictionary." ''The Merriam-Webster Dictionary of English Usage'' is quite plain in its disagreement with the critics:
:* ''Disputed usage'': "As documented in depth by the Boston Globe, Massachusetts high schools feature some of the most uniquely oriented fields in all of baseball." "None of those may be more unique than the field that Braintree (Mass.) High calls home." "The setting has required some rather unique rule modifications to work in the town hall." "While French's Common may be the Bay State's most unique park, it certainly isn't alone."

* urgent – The primary meaning of ''urgent'' is as a description of a pressing need. Especially in journalistic contexts, it is sometimes used by transference to describe the thing needed, or to mean "happening very soon".
** ''Undisputed usage'': There is an urgent need for talks
** ''Disputed usage'': There is a need for urgent talks
** ''Disputed usage'': The President promised that urgent talks would be held

W

* whilst and while – ''Penguin Working Words'' recommends ''while'' only, and notes that ''whilst'' is old-fashioned. ''Cambridge Guide to English Usage'' and M-W's ''Webster's Guide to English Usage'' comment on its regional character, and note that it is rare in American usage.whilst or while?
It is thus safer to use only ''while'' in international English. Both ''whilst'' and ''amongst'' are excrescent inflections of the more standard ''while'' and ''among'', and could be classified as grammatically incorrect; however, other excrescent inflections are widely accepted in Modern English (''against'', ''midst'', etc.), and some others are widely encountered in both forms (''amid'' and ''amidst'', ''among'' and ''amongst''). Although ''against'' has no widely acceptable alternative, ''mid-'' or ''middle'' can be substituted for some uses of ''midst'' (the stock phrase ''in their/our midst'' remains common and has no widely accepted alternative using ''mid'' or ''middle'').
* who – Some argue that '' who'' should be used only as a subject pronoun, the corresponding object pronoun being '' whom''. Strictly speaking, using ''who'' instead of ''whom'' is substituting a subjective pronoun for an objective pronoun and hence is the same as using ''she'' instead of ''her'' (e.g., "I saw she today."). Most people never use ''whom'' in spoken English and instead use ''who'' for all cases. Those who use ''whom'' in everyday speech may recognize substitution of ''who'' as substandard. ''Fowler's'' has an extensive entry on ''who and whom'' including several quotes from major publications where ''whom'' is used incorrectly.
** ''Undisputed usage'': You are talking to whom?
** ''Disputed usage'': You are talking to who?
** ''Undisputed usage'': To whom are you talking?
** ''Widely disputed usage'': To who are you talking?
** ''Disputed usage'': Who are you talking to?
** ''Incorrect usage'': "... far more hostile to Diana whom she believes betrayed the Prince of Wales" – ''Independent Magazine'', 1993 (FOWLER)
** ''Undisputed usage'': "... far more hostile to Diana who she believes betrayed the Prince of Wales"
** ''Disputed usage'': "Whom do men say that I am?" (Mark 9:27, King James Version)
* whoever – This extension of ''who'' (see above) along with its object form ''whomever'' is attended by the same uncertainties as ''who'' along with ''whom'', and is discussed in the same sources. (See the relevant section at Who.)
** ''Undisputed usage'': Give it to whoever wants it.
** ''Undisputed usage'': Give it to whoever you think should have it.
** ''Undisputed usage'': Give it to whomever you choose to give it.
** ''Disputed usage'': Give it to whoever you choose to give it to.
** ''Disputed usage'': Give it to whomever wants it.
** ''Disputed usage'': Give it to whomever you think should have it.
* whose – The use of ''whose'' to refer to non-persons (called inanimate ''whose'') has drawn criticism from those who note that it derives from ''who'', which can be used only with persons and the personified. English lacks a possessive form of ''which'', so there is no word that could substitute for ''whose'' in the disputed example below to make it undisputed; the sentence would have to be reworded. Usually that is done with ''of which'' constructions, though these can sometimes be awkward or stilted and may inspire further rewriting.
** ''Undisputed usage'': That's the woman ''whose'' husband keeps waking us up at night.
** ''Disputed usage'': That's the car ''whose'' alarm keeps waking us up at night.
** ''Undisputed rewording, but potentially stilted:'' That's the car of which the alarm keeps waking us up at night.
** ''Undisputed rewording:'' That car's alarm is the one that keeps waking us up at night.

Further reading

* Cochrane, James (2004). ''Between You and I: A Little Book of Bad English''. Napierville, Illinois: Sourcebooks.
* ''Concise Oxford English Dictionary'', 11th edition (2004). Soanes, Catherine et al. (eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
* Fowler, H.W. ''A Dictionary of Modern English Usage.'' Oxford University Press. Fourth U.S. Printing, 1950.
*

References

{{reflist

External links

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language online

Chambers Reference online

Dictionary.com
accessing the American Heritage Dictionary and the Random House Dictionary

Merriam-Webster Online

Compact Oxford English Dictionary online

Words with disputed usage
Disputed usage
English usage controversies