Bryson's Dictionary of Troublesome Words - Bill Bryson [79]
Weddell Sea, Antarctica.
Wedgwood china. Not Wedge-.
Weidenfeld and Nicolson for the British publisher. Not -field, not Nich-.
Western Australia for the Australian state, but The West Australian for its largest newspaper.
Westmorland, not -more-, for the former English county, now part of Cumbria.
what at the beginning of a sentence often indicates a statement that could do with another look. “What has characterized her evidence—and indeed the entire case—is the constant name-dropping” (Sunday Times) would be shorter and more active as “Her evidence—and indeed the entire case—has been characterized by constant name-dropping.”
whence. “And man will return to the state of hydrogen from whence he came” (Sunday Telegraph). Although there is ample precedent for from whence—the King James Bible has the sentence “I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help”—it is nonetheless tautological. Whence means “from where.” It is enough to say “to the state of hydrogen whence he came.”
whether or not. The second two words should be dropped when whether is equivalent to if, as here: “It is not yet known whether or not persons who become reinfected can spread the virus to other susceptible individuals” (New York Times). Or not is necessary, however, when what is being stressed is an alternative: “I intend to go whether or not you like it.”
whet one’s appetite. Not wet. The word has nothing to do with heightened salivary flow or anything of the like. It comes from an Old English word, hwettan, meaning “sharpen.” Hence also whetstone, for a stone used to sharpen knives.
which. The belief that which may refer only to the preceding word and not to the whole of a preceding statement is without foundation except where there is a chance of ambiguity. The impossibility of enforcing the rule consistently is illustrated by an anecdote cited by Gowers. A class in Philadelphia had written to a local paper’s resident usage expert asking him what was wrong with the sentence “He wrecked the car, which was due to his carelessness.” Notice how the authority hoists himself with the last three words of his reply: “The fault lies in using which to refer to the statement ‘He wrecked the car.’ When which follows a noun, it refers to that noun as its antecedent. Therefore in the foregoing sentence it is stated that the car was due to his carelessness, which is nonsense.” See also THAT, WHICH.
whitish for the color. Not white-.
whiz kid, not whizz-, is generally the preferred spelling, though most dictionaries recognize both. The same applies for whiz-bang, but with the addition of a hyphen.
who, whom. For those who are perennially baffled by the distinction between these two relative pronouns, it may come as some comfort to know that Shakespeare, Addison, Ben Jonson, Dickens, Churchill, and the translators of the King James Bible have equally been flummoxed in their time.
The rule can be stated simply. Whom is used when it is the object of a preposition (“To whom it may concern”) or verb (“The man whom we saw last night”) or the subject of a complementary infinitive (“The person whom we took to be your father”). Who is used on all other occasions.
Consider now three examples in which the wrong choice has been made: “Mrs. Hinckley said that her son had been upset by the murder of Mr. Lennon, who he idolized” (New York Times); “Colombo, whom law enforcement officials have said is the head of a Mafia family in Brooklyn . . .” (New York Times); “Heartbreaking decision—who to save” (headline in The Times). We can check the correctness of such sentences by imagining them as he/him constructions. For instance, would you say that “Hinckley idolized he” or “idolized him”? Would law enforcement officers say that “he is the head of a Mafia family” or “him is the head”? And is it a heartbreaking decision over whether to save he or to save him?
Simple, isn’t it? Well, not quite. When the relative