Words to Write By Part 10

A look at commonly misused words.

Whenever I add a new post to this series, I’m surprised by two things. First, that it’s been so long since the last one I posted since I love this series, and second, that I have more posts in this series than I realized. I try to keep the framework of each part of this series the same, so it’s easy to refer back to and easy to jump into whether it’s your first time here or you’ve been with me since the beginning. So, without further ado, I hope you enjoy this installment.

The Words to Write By series is a quick reference to help explain the differences between commonly misused words. In this installment of Words to Write By, I’ll review emigrate vs. immigrate, lamb vs. lam, adverse vs. averse, and through vs. threw.

Emigrate vs. immigrate: This has to do with the direction in which someone is moving. A person emigrates from someplace and immigrates to another place. Bjørn emigrated from Norway to the United States. Or, Bjørn immigrated to the United States from Norway.

Lamb vs. lam: These homophones can be tricky, mainly because people may not know that the b is dropped from the second one to form a common phrase. Lamb is a baby sheep. Mary had a little lamb. Lam means to hit or to leave in a hurry, especially from the law. Tony went on the lam.

Adverse vs. averse: These are quite tricky. These words made the list because I either heard or read it misused somewhere, but it wasn’t until I started to write this post that I realized how often these two words are misused. Let’s see if I can break this down to make it easy to remember the difference. Adverse has to do with a disagreeable, unfavorable, or harmful condition. Such as adverse weather conditions. Or, Peggy had an adverse reaction to her medication. Averse has to do with people’s feelings of dislike or distaste toward something. It’s often used with the word not. Tim was not averse to having children. Or, Hayden was averse to taking pop quizzes. In other words, use averse when discussing people’s feelings toward something, never adverse in those situations.

Through vs. threw: This is a common error I see, but hopefully will be easy for people to correct if they are interested in knowing the difference. Through means to enter on one side and exit out the other. We’ll be traveling through the tunnel on the way to the market. Threw is the past tense of throw, so to cause something to travel through the air with force. He threw me a fastball.

Look for future installments of “Words to Write By.” You can find links to the rest of the series below.

Part 1: Peak vs. peek vs. pique, further vs. farther, blonde vs. blond, and gray vs. grey.

Part 2: Alleged, hung vs. hanged, a vs. the, and bring vs. take.

Part 3: Who’s vs. whose, whet vs. wet, compliment vs. complement, fazed vs. phased.

Part 4: Fiancé vs. fiancée, insure vs. ensure, alright vs. all right, and simultaneous vs. contemporaneous.

Part 5: Use vs. utilized, bear vs. bare, shuttered vs. shuddered, and breath vs. breathe.

Part 6: Maya vs. Mayan, hole vs. whole, libel vs. slander, patients vs. patience.

Part 7: A vs. an, cite vs. site vs. sight, i.e. vs. e.g., and that vs. who.

Part 8: Taking vs. taken, quiet vs. quite vs. quit, advise vs. advice, regardless vs. irregardless.

Part 9: Penultimate vs. ultimate, whether vs. weather, verses vs. versus, then vs. than.

 

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. I can totally see how Adverse and Averse can be confused for each other. They both have negative meanings and are just one letter apart. People probably assume they’re the same word. Though, what probably happens more often that not is the writer types the word too fast. They’ll be writing passionately about adverse weather conditions and type averse instead. And Word will just shrug its digital shoulders and say, “Averse is a real word. I got no objections here. No red line for you, mister.” And it slips on through, completely unnoticed.

    • Mandie Hines says:

      Haha Your commentary for Word gave me a good giggle. And it’s true. Their spelling is so close that it would be easy to mistype them and not have Word catch them. It is one of the dangers of relying too heavily on grammar, editing, and spell checking tools and programs.
      Sometimes there are just errors that regardless of the number of eyes that scan over it, it still gets missed. And the greatest danger of that happening is when it’s a correctly spelled word, just not the word you want in that instance.
      I just had this happen the other day. I’d reviewed a chapter of my horror manuscript many times before. I’d just had five people review it. While I was reading it again, an error jumped out at me. I was surprised I hadn’t caught it before and doubly surprised it wasn’t caught by my writing group. I had mistakenly used teaming instead of teeming. But that’s the danger of homophones.The brain tends to correct small errors like that when you’re reading.

      • “The brain tends to correct small errors like that when you’re reading.” I totally know what that’s like. In one part of my story, I had written duck fathers instead of duck feathers and my mind kept skimming right past it every time I reread it. Then, one of my other readers pointed it out and I was like “Huh? How’d that slip past my Internal Editor?” But it was like my brain was expecting the word to be feathers so it automatically added in that missing letter.

Join the Conversation