"Continual" = frequently reoccurring; intermittent. E.g.: "And [the police are] removing [the homeless]—by police rides to the edge of town by *continual* issuing of citations for camping, by mass towing of vehicles and by routine discarding of people's belongings."

"Continuous" = occurring without interruption; unceasing. E.g.: "Crow Canyon archaeologists want to study the 12th- and 13th-century village to determine exactly when it was inhabited and whether it was occupied *continuously* or intermittently."

A good mnemonic device is to think of the -ous ending as being short for "one uninterrupted sequence."

The two words are frequently confused, usually because "continuous" horns in where "continual" belongs.

The phrase "almost continuous" [is incorrect, and] indicates that "continual" is the right word.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3413663&forum_id=2#31818735)

Even so, careful writers tend to be sickened by the slippage and to follow the traditional distinction in formal writing. That is, what is nauseous makes one feel nauseated—e.g.: [citing David Foster Wallace's correct usage in "Consider the Lobster"] . . . .

Through 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court, in its seven uses of either word, had maintained a perfect record—e.g.: [citing Kaplan v. California, 413 U.S. 115 (1973)] . . .

But other writers have spread the peccadillo, especially since the late 20th century—e.g.: [citing the Santa Fe Mexican and the New York Daily News] . . . .

LANGUAGE CHANGE INDEX:

nauseous misused for nauseated = Stage 4 (Ubiquitous but . . .)

1941 ratio (felt nauseated vs. felt nauseous): 9:1

Current ratio: 1:1.5

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3413663&forum_id=2#31968136)

Traditionally, the forms were inflammable and noninflammable; today they are flammable and nonflammable. By the early 1970s, purists had lost the fight to retain the older forms.

Even staunch descriptivists endorsed the prescriptive shift from inflammable to flammable—e.g. [citing Hill's 1983 "Bad Words, Good Words, Misused Words"] . . . .

LANGUAGE-CHANGE INDEX

flammable (=combustible): Stage 5 (Full accepted)

Current ratio (flammable vs. inflammable): 2:1

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3413663&forum_id=2#31968169)

actually interesting

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3413663&forum_id=2#31968192)

very.

A. As a weasel word. This intensifier, which functions as both an adjective and an adverb, surfaces repeatedly in flabby writing. In almost every context in which it appears, its omission would result in at most a negligible loss. And in many contexts the idea would be more powerfully expressed without it—e.g.: "The very [delete very] outrageous statement by Earl Woods that his son would 'do more than anyone to change humanity' gives Woods a chance not to survive his Miracle at the Masters, but to improve upon it." [Tulsa Tribune & Tulsa World (1997)]. In that sentence—as in so many others—"very" actually weakens the adjective that follows. See "most." Cf. "clearly" & "obviously."

B. "Very disappointed," etc. The strict, arch-conservative view is that "very" modifies adjectives (sorry, sick, etc.) and not, properly, past participles (disappointed, engrossed, etc.).

In 1966, Wilson Follett wrote that "finer ears are offended by past participles modifies by 'very' without the intervention of the quantitative 'much,' which respects the verbal sense of an action undergone. Such writers require 'very much disappointed,' 'very much pleased,' 'very much engrossed,' etc." Four years later, Charlton Laird nodded at this stricture but suggested it had become passé: "Half a century ago purists insisted that the past participle should never be preceded by 'very' unless it was protected with an insulating 'much,' and some of us were so imbued with this supposedly eternal truth that we still wince if we hear that anyone is 'very pleased.'"

Of course, many past-participial adjectives have now lost their verbal force. Almost no one today would hesitate over "very depressed," "very drunk," "very interested," "very tired," or "very worried." Although Follett and Laird would probably be very much displeased to learn this, "very pleased" also belongs on this list.

The principle is that when a past participle has become thoroughly established as an adjective, it can indisputably take "very" rather than "very much."

If there's any could about the phrasing, a good solution is to substitute "quite" or (a little more formally) "much"—or, again, possibly "very much"—e.g.,: [citing the Houston Chronicle and Tulsa World] . . . .

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3413663&forum_id=2#31968400)

LANGUAGE-CHANGE INDEX

breath misused for breathe: Stage 1 (Rejected.)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3413663&forum_id=2#31968409)

G. Possessives of Names Made with Possessives. It is common for businesses to be named with a proper single name in possessive form, such as McDonald's. Although possessive in form, these are functionally nouns, as in "McDonald's brings you a new kind of meal." How, then, does one make a possessive of the noun "McDonald's"? Literally, it would be "McDonald's's," as in "Try McDonald's's dinner combos!" But good phrasing requires "the dinner combos at McDonald's." It is also quite defensible to write "McDonald's dinner combos" (the name function as a kind of possessive) or "the McDonald's dinner combos" (the name functioning attributively).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3413663&forum_id=2#31968436)

What of the mass-noun / count-noun distinction (less v. fewer)?

Does the text describe the different location systems in the language? (agent based, object based, objective)

Anything on unintentional rhyme and sansion marring prose?

Mixed metaphors - and maintaining symbolic consistency?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3413663&forum_id=2#31968624)

less.

A. And "fewer."

Strictly, "less" applies to singular nouns <less tonic water, please> or units of measure <less than six ounces of epoxy>. "Fewer" applies to plural nouns <fewer guests arrived than expected> or number of things <we have three fewer members this year>. The empirical evidence in print sources bears out the distinction: the collocation "fewer people" is about seven times as common in books published today as *"less people." . . .

The exception in using "fewer" occurs when count nouns essentially function as mass nouns because the units are so very numerous or they aren't considered discrete items (the idea of individual units becomes meaningless). Hence "less" is used correctly with time and money: one isn't, ordinarily, talking about the number of years or the number of dollars but rather the amount of time or amount of money. [Examples].

"Fewer," in fact, is incorrect when intended to refer to a period of time—e.g.: "You can run from sea level to the sky and back to earth in as fast as 45 minutes (so far), but even today, going round-trip in *fewer* [read "less"] than 60 minutes carries a special cachet." But if the unit of time are thought of as wholes, and not by fractions, then "fewer" is called for <fewer days abroad> <fewer weeks spent apart>.

Hence we say "less documentation" but "fewer documents"; "less argumentation" but "fewer arguments"; "less whispering" but "fewer remarks"; "less ambiguity" but "fewer ambiguities"; "less of a burden" but "fewer burdens"; "less material" but "fewer items"; "less flattering" but "fewer calories."

The degree to which "less" occurs where "fewer" would be the better word is a matter of some historical dispute. In 1969, a linguist reported that "the use of 'less' in referring to discrete countable in very rare" in edited English. But earlier that decade, another writer had nearly called the usage standard American English. . . .

The linguistic hegemony by which "less" has encroached on "fewer"'s territory is probably now irreversible. What has lined this developed is something as mundane as the express checkout lines in supermarkets. They're typically bedecked with signs cautioning, "15 items or less." These signs are all but ubiquitous in the United States. But the occasional more literal supermarket owner uses a different sign: "15 or fewer items."

Finally, even with the strict usage, it's something a close call whether a thing is a mass noun or a count noun, and hence whether "less" or "fewer" is proper. Take, for example, a percentage: should it be "less than 10% of the homeowners were there" or "fewer than 10% of the homeowners were there"? One could argue that a percentage is something counted (i.e., 10 out of 100) and therefore requires "fewer." One could also argue that a percentage is a collective mass noun (akin, e.g., to money), and so requires "less." The latter is the better argument become most percentages aren't whole numbers anyway. Even if it were a toss-up between the two theories, it's sound to choose "less," which is less formal in tone than "fewer."

LANGUAGE-CHANGE INDEX

less for fewer in reference to a plural count noun: Stage 3 (Widespread but . . .)

Current ratio (fewer people vs. *less people): 7:1

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3413663&forum_id=2#31968721)

decimate. Originally this word meant "to kill one in every ten," but this etymological sense, because it's so uncommon, has been abandoned except in historical contexts. Now "decimate" generally means "to cause great loss of life; to destroy a large part of."

Even allowing that extension in meaning, the word is commonly misused in two ways.

First, the word is sometimes mistakenly applied to an obliteration or utter defeat—e.g.: [citing the New York Times, Cormac McCarthy's "Outer Dark," and the Caledon Enterprise].

Second, the word is misused when it is used lightly of any defeat or setback, however trivial or temporary, especially when applied to inanimate things—e.g.: [citing the Boston Herald and the Plain Dealer (Cleveland)].

And sometimes the metaphor is simply inappropriate—e.g.: "He said he had watched lung cancer decimate [read emaciate or ravage] his sister's body."

In fact, though, the word might be justifiably considered a SKUNKED TERM. Whether you stick to the original one-in-ten meaning or use the extended sense, the word is infected with ambiguity. And some of your readers will probably be puzzled or bothered.

LANGUAGE-CHANGE INDEX

1. decimate for large-scale destruction: Stage 5 (Fully accepted.)

2. decimate for complete destruction: Stage 3 (Widespread but . . .)

3. decimate for the figurative destruction of a single thing or person <she was decimated by the news: Stage 4 (Ubiquitous but . . .)

4. decimate for hamper or plague: Stage 3 (Widespread but . . .)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3413663&forum_id=2#31968791)

Metaphors. . . .

B. Mixed Metaphors. The most embarrassing problem with metaphors occurs when one metaphor crowds another. It can happen with CLICHÉS—e.g.:

- "It's on a day like this that the cream really rises to the crop." (This mingles <the cream rises to the top> with <the cream of the crop>.)

- "He's really got his hands cut out for him." (This mingles <he's got his hands full> with <he's got his work cut out for him>.)

- "This will separate the men from the chaff." (This mingles <separate the men from the boys> with <separate the whole wheat from the chaff>.)

- "It will take someone willing to pick up the gauntlet and run with it." (This mingles <pick up the gauntlet> with <pick up the ball and run with it>.)

- "From now on, I am watching everything with do with a fine-toothed comb." (<Watching everything you do> isn't something than can occur with <a fine-toothed comb>.)

The purpose of an image is to fix the idea in the reader's or hearer's mind. If jarringly disparate images appear together, the audience is left confused or sometimes laughing, at the writer's expense.

The following classic example comes from a speech by Boyle Roche in the Irish Parliament, delivered in about 1790: "Mr. Speaker, I smell a rat. I see him floating in the air. But mark me, sir, I will nip him in the bud." Perhaps the supreme example of the comic misuse of metaphor occurred in the speech of a scientist who referred to "a virgin field pregnant with possibilities."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3413663&forum_id=2#31968907)

i'm not sure if this is directly on point, but it's the closest entry, i believe:

ALLITERATION.

A. Pleasant Examples. How language affects the ear should be a critical concern of every writer. Writers frequently harness sounds for any of several effects. When they repeat sounds in nearby words, the result is called alliteration (which has two subsets: assonance for vowels <reverie in poetry>, consonance for consonants <put pen to paper>).

Sometimes alliteration reinforces sarcasm, as when Vice President Spiro Agnew referred to the "nattering nabobs of negativism" or when Fred Rodell, a Yale professor, referred to due process as "that lovely limpid legalism." Rodell, in fact, relished the sarcastic alliteration, once referring to "the tweedledum-tweedledee twaddle of much that passes for learned legal argument."

At other times alliteration merely creates memorable phrasing—e.g.:

- " . . . promptly applied, can provide this poor, pusillanimous poop with the proper pep."

- "Nothing sounds more studied than a repeated spontaneity."

- "She had a sneaky, sly, shy, squamous personality."

Sometimes alliteration is risky. If it leads you into SESQUIPEDALITY just for the sake of sound, it will probably annoy some readers—e.g.: "Lukas has an eagle eye for the etiology of error." If that writer hasn't been lured by alliteration, he almost certainly would have used "cause" instead of "etiology" there.

B. Unpleasant Examples. The unconscious repetition of sounds, especially excessive sibilance (too many /s/ sounds, as in the phrase "especially excessive sibilance"), can easily distract readers: "When used by accident it falls on the ear very disagreeably." Maugham (1938). E.g.: "Everybody with a stake in solving the problem will have to bear their fair share of the costs involved." (A possible revision which also solves the "everybody . . . their" problem: "Everybody with a stake in solving the problem will have to bear some of the costs.")

The best way to avoid the infelicity of undue alliteration is to read one's prose aloud when editing. See SOUND OF PROSE.

Yet sometimes unpleasant alliteration isn't merely a matter of whether it's conscious or unconscious. That is to say, a writer may use it quite consciously but also quite unpleasantly, through poor literary judgment—e.g.: "The necessarily contextual, contested, and contingent character of substantive liberal principles necessarily prevents them, qua principles, from effectively inhibiting human brutality."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3413663&forum_id=2#31969003)

he does have a lot of great mini-essay entries, but i'm not seeing anything pertinent to this. if you have any related terms an entry might be found under, i'll take a look.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3413663&forum_id=2#31969012)

Maybe try entries under location.

The writing tip is that it's jarring to move from one system of describing the location of something to another without an appropriate transition.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3413663&forum_id=2#31969287)

See PLURALS (B.) and HYPERCORRECTION (A.). Since 1900, <octopuses> has greatly predominated in English-language print sources.

Occasionally the pedantic <octopodes> appears but it is relatively rare—e.g. [citing an example from Newsday (N.Y.) (2001)].

LANGUAGE-CHANGE INDEX

*octupi for octopuses: Stage 3 (Widespread but . . .)

Current ration (octopuses vs. *octupi): 3:1

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3413663&forum_id=2#31969348)

Tom Swiftys?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3413663&forum_id=2#31969240)

tenure; tender. <Tenure> (= [1] a holding by right, as of an elected office; [2] the time spent in such an office; or [3] an entitlement to a professional position, especially at the university, with protection against dismissal) is sometimes used where the intent was <tender>, vb. (= to offer something, especially in settlement of a debt or a dispute). When the thing being tendered is a resignation, this MALAPROPISM is particularly absurd—e.g.: [citing the Bay State Banner, the Lancaster New Era Journal, and the Spartanburg Herald (S.C.)].

LANGUAGE-CHANGE INDEX

tenure misused for tender: Stage 1 (Rejected.)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3413663&forum_id=2#31969404)