Bryson's Dictionary of Troublesome Words - Bill Bryson [18]
connote, denote. Denote means simply to convey information. Connote describes additional aspects that follow from what is denoted. My frown as I approach the house might denote to an interested onlooker that I am unhappy, but connote that I have just spotted the large new dent on the rear passenger door of the family car.
consensus. “The general consensus in Washington . . .” (Chicago Tribune). A tautology. Any consensus must be general. Equally to be avoided is “consensus of opinion.” Finally, note that consensus is spelled with a middle s, like consent. It has nothing to do with census.
consummate. As a term of praise, the word is much too freely used. A consummate actor is not merely a very good one, but someone who is so good as to be unrivaled or nearly so. It should be reserved to describe only the very best.
contagious, infectious. Diseases spread by contact are contagious. Those spread by air and water are infectious. Used figuratively (“contagious laughter,” “infectious enthusiasm”), either is fine.
contemptible, contemptuous. Contemptible means deserving contempt. Contemptuous means bestowing it. A contemptible offer may receive a contemptuous response.
conterminous, coterminous. The two words mean the same thing—to share a boundary—though the first is more commonly used than the second.
continual, continuous. Although the distinction is not widely observed, or indeed always necessary, there is a useful difference between these words. Continual refers to things that happen repeatedly but not constantly. Continuous indicates an uninterrupted sequence. However, few readers will be aware of this distinction, and the writer who requires absolute clarity will generally be better advised to use incessant or uninterrupted for continuous and intermittent for continual.
contrary, converse, opposite, reverse. All four are variously confused at times, which is understandable, since their distinctions tend to blur. Briefly, contrary describes something that contradicts a proposition. Converse applies when the elements of a proposition are reversed. Opposite is something that is diametrically opposed to a proposition. Reverse can describe any of these.
Take the statement “I love you.” Its opposite is “I hate you.” Its converse is “You love me.” Its contrary would be anything that contradicted it: “I do not love you,” “I have no feelings at all for you,” “I like you moderately.” The reverse could embrace all of these meanings.
conurbation describes not any urban area, but rather a place where two or more sizable communities have sprawled together, such as Pasadena–Los Angeles–Long Beach in California and Amsterdam-Rotterdam-Haarlem-Utrecht in the Netherlands.
convince, persuade. Although often used interchangeably, the words are not quite the same. Briefly, you convince someone that he should believe but persuade him to act. It is possible to persuade a person to do something without convincing him of the correctness or necessity of doing it. A separate distinction is that persuade may be followed by an infinitive, but convince may not. Thus the following is wrong: “The Soviet Union evidently is not able to convince Cairo to accept a rapid cease-fire” (New York Times). Make it either “persuade Cairo to accept” or “convince Cairo that it should accept.”
couldn’t of. “‘Couldn’t of got it without you, Pops,’ Parker said” (New Yorker). As a shortened form of “couldn’t have,” couldn’t of does unquestionably avoid the clumsy double contraction couldn’t’ve, a form not often seen in print since J. D. Salinger stopped writing. However, I would submit that that does not make it satisfactory. Using the preposition of as a surrogate for ’ve seems to me simply to be swapping an ungainly form for an illiterate one. If couldn’t’ve is too painful to use, why not simply write couldn’t have and allow the reader’s imagination to supply the appropriate inflection?