Editor's Corner

Dear Editrix,

I’d like your opinion on proper usage of dissuade vs. disabuse. Your father and I have differing views. Perhaps you can lend another clarifying distinction? I lean toward allowing a broader interpretation where it’s ok to use them interchangeably.

Love,

G

Today’s question is from my marvelous non-incubatory mom, Georgia, and my dad. Yes, that’s the kind of thing an editor’s parents talk about when their kids are gone. The weighty discussions of language don’t seem to lighten with age. You can definitely see: we know how to party!

As I told Georgia, I suspected my answer would put me on my dad’s side, but I promised to look deeper into this just in case. I have definitions, synonyms, and antonyms from Merriam-Webster, examples from me, and an AI twist from Gemini. Here is everything:

Kara Church | Technical Editor, Advisory | KE – Documentation

Pronouns: she/her | Call via Teams | jackhenry.com

Editor’s Corner Archives: https://episystechpubs.com/

Good morning, folks! This seems a little grim for summer, but it’s a busy day and I don’t have time to write an article myself.

Here are a couple of language tidbits from columnist Richard Lederer.

DEAR RICHARD: Have you ever seen this tombstone?

Here lies (not “lays”)
Billie Woody Robins Reed
English Teacher
–Bill Plachy, San Marcos

Your tombstone is a new one to me, and I am delighted to add it to my cemetery of occupational epitaphs that demonstrate how some folks take their jobs with them to the very end. I hope that readers will dig the humor and won’t find the plots too deep and the comedy too grave:

Epitaph on a dentist:
Stranger: Approach this spot with gravity.
John Brown is filling his last cavity.

Epitaph on a lawyer:
Goembel, John E.
“The defense rests.”

Epitaph on an auctioneer:
Born 1828
Going!
Going!!
Gone!!!
1876

My favorite in this category is an epitaph on a waiter:
By and by,
God caught his eye.

My own tombstone may read:

I write. Therefore I am.
I wrote. Therefore I was.

…

DEAR RICHARD: Is it correct to use the word that referring to a person rather than who? Examples: “The child that was absent was sick.” “The child who was absent was sick.” Referring to a person as “that” seems very disrespectful. –Alice Robeson. Oceanside

For centuries, that has been used to introduce adjective clauses that modify human beings, as in Mark Twain’s novella “The Man That Corrupted Hadleyburg.” But to my ear, that is too distant and impersonal for people. Stick with who, whom, and whose for people (and animals who have names) and that and which for things and ideas.

Kara Church | Technical Editor, Advisory | KE – Documentation

Pronouns: she/her | Call via Teams | jackhenry.com

Editor’s Corner Archives: https://episystechpubs.com/

Hello, folks!

I just received a Facebook video on fossil words. I know that Ben Ritter covered them in the past, in fact here are the links:

• Editor’s Corner: Fossil Words, Part 1 | Editor’s Corner
• Editor’s Corner: Fossil Words, Part 2 | Editor’s Corner
• Editor’s Corner: Fossil Words, Part 3 | Editor’s Corner

A fossil word is a word like “amok” that is almost obsolete, but it lives on a little longer because it’s associated with an idiom. For example, we know that “run amok” means to act (or run) uncontrollably, but if we see the word alone, we might not be able to define it.

I have some additions to Ben’s three lists. I’ve included the fossil word, the meaning of the word (from Merriam-Webster), the idiom it is associated with, and the idiom’s meaning (from The Free Dictionary). I don’t think I repeated anything from Ben’s lists.

Kara Church | Technical Editor, Advisory | KE – Documentation

Pronouns: she/her | Call via Teams | jackhenry.com

Editor’s Corner Archives: https://episystechpubs.com/

I received a Facebook post from one of you, about words that end in “-le.” The presenter said that when you hear a verb with the suffix “-le,” and look at the root of the word, the ending indicates “repetition or continuousness.” Here’s an example for you: sneezle. Now, I didn’t know sneezle was a word, but I do know the verb “to sneeze.” Using this presenter’s method to define the word, you find the root (sneeze) and add the “-le” to mean repetitive sneezing or “To sneeze continuously or multiple times.”

When I started looking into this, I noticed that we don’t use many of these words anymore, and then some of them are tricky because the roots they use are from Old English, Middle English, or older. It’s still an interesting feature in our language, so I thought I’d provide you with some examples.

There is a longer list on Wiktionary…around 70. You can expand the list and click for more information if you’re interested. For now, I’ve provided a table with the details on almost 20 of these verbs. We have some cool words out there that we should be using more often!

Kara Church | Technical Editor, Advisory | KE – Documentation

Pronouns: she/her | Call via Teams | jackhenry.com

Editor’s Corner Archives: https://episystechpubs.com/

Six years ago, I wrote about the phrase “It’s been a minute” meaning “it’s been a while.” The research I found for my original article steered me away from its history and directed me toward a “New York minute,” a “hot minute,” and a Red Hot Chili Peppers’ song One Hot Minute.

More recently, I learned differently from A Way with Words and a little Google™ Gemini research. From A Way with Words:

…Why would we use a phrase that usually means “sixty seconds” for a period of time that might actually be much longer? This slang meaning was first recorded among Black Americans in the 1970s and later adopted by college students before spreading into mainstream culture. Sam Sanders, who hosts National Public Radio’s It’s Been A Minute, has described the phrase as a way of saying “Let’s catch up.”

Google™ Gemini agrees that it’s a feature of the Black community in the U.S. from the 1970s, and goes on to say that it “likely” evolved from:

…(A)n older, related phrase: "in a minute." In the mid-20th century, saying "I’ll see you in a minute" or "I’ll get to that in a minute" was often used as a casual farewell or promise to return. Over time, that casual use of "minute" to represent an indefinite chunk of time flipped around to describe the time that had already passed ("It’s been a minute").

The remainder of Gemini’s report mentions “a hot minute,” which dates to mid-1800s England and meant a brief, intense moment. When it came across the ocean to America and traveled into the late 1900s, Americans changed the meaning of “a hot minute” to be a long time.

Somewhere in those years, Black Americans dropped “hot” from the phrase, and it went from “It’s been a hot minute” to “It’s been a minute.” Skip ahead to the 2000s, and the mixing and mingling of cultures on college campuses brought the idiom to the youth, and then the general public.

I hope this revision has given credit where it is due!

Kara Church | Technical Editor, Advisory | KE – Documentation

Pronouns: she/her | Call via Teams | jackhenry.com

Editor’s Corner Archives: https://episystechpubs.com/

Today’s article is something we’ve covered many times over the years: dangling modifiers. I’m busy working on other stuff, so I’m leaving this to Richard Lederer and his San Diego Union-Tribune article: Be careful to avoid dangling your participles in public.

DEAR RICHARD: In a recent edition of the Union-Tribune, I read the following sentence:
“Santee leaders passed an ordinance banning children under age 12 from riding e-bikes in December.” Why only in December? – James Huizenga, Clairemont

James Huizenga offers a spot-on example of what happens when one’s modifiers go south — or north or anywhere too far away from the words they are supposed to modify: The AP Press Guide to News Writing advises: “The language has many ways to trip you up, most deviously through a modifier that turns up in the wrong place. Don’t let related ideas in a sentence drift apart. Modifiers should be close to the word they purport to modify.”

Pioneer television broadcaster and interviewer Barbara Walters experienced a long and distinguished career. Fix your eyes on reports about three of her interviews:

· Yoko Ono talks about her husband John Lennon, who was killed in an interview with Barbara Walters.

· Former hostage Terry Waite talks about his five years of captivity in Beirut with Barbara Walters.

· The diving and amateur sports community remained in shock today following revelations that Olympic diver Greg Louganis, who speaks freely of his contracting AIDS in a 20/20 interview with Barbara Walters.

In all three stories, the phrase “with Barbara Walters” doesn’t appear to modify what it was supposed to. What was there about Barbara Walters, we ask, that compelled people to dangle their participles in public?

In the original film version of Mary Poppins, Bert the Chimney Sweep tells Uncle Albert, “I know a man with a wooden leg named Smith.” “And what’s the name of the other leg?” Albert asks with a laugh, and “a wooden leg named Smith” becomes a running joke throughout the film.

That’s the problem with dangling participles and misplaced modifiers. They leave us firmly planted on midair. They spin the brain into images of a surreal world: I’ve got bells that jingle jangle jingle and phrases that dangle dingle dangle:

· We saw many bears driving through Yellowstone Park.

· After years of being lost under a pile of dust, Chester D. Thatcher found all the old records of the Bangor Lions Club at the Bangor house.

· No one was injured in the blast, which was attributed by a build-up of gas by a town official.

· With his tail held high, my father led his prize bull around the arena.

· I wish to express my thanks to the U.S. Postal Service for the great, kind service they give and for patience they have with little old ladies in mailing packages.

· Plunging 1,000 feet into the gorge, we saw Yosemite Falls.

· Jewel has certainly made her mark by being perhaps the first folksinger to take the stage with a guitar in four-inch heels and a miniskirt.

· One couldn’t help but be aware of the stallion Royal Rich sitting in the stands the last couple nights.

· As a baboon who grew up wild in the jungle, I realized that Wiki had special nutritional needs.

· He ran outside and chased after the cat with a broomstick in his underwear.

· LOST. A walking stick by an elderly man with a curiously carved ivory head.

· The bride was given in marriage by her father, wearing her mother’s wedding dress.

I hope you have a great day, everyone!

Kara Church | Technical Editor, Advisory | KE – Documentation

Pronouns: she/her | Call via Teams | jackhenry.com

Editor’s Corner Archives: https://episystechpubs.com/

Good morning! One of you asked me about the word “shall” and if it was an old word that we don’t use too much anymore. I thought about “shall” vs. “should,” and I ended up in a mole hole up to my eyeballs. Here is some basic information from Merriam-Webster (M-W), a less-than-great YouTube video, and an internet (Copilot) search.

Should

From M-W:

Used to express condition.

Example: Should (if) you change your mind about coming to dinner, please let us know.

From Copilot:

Used to express advice, recommendation, or a less strict obligation. It conveys a sense of probability or expectation, such as "You should study for the exam". [KC – You don’t have to study, but I strongly recommend that you do.]

Shall

Shall is the past tense of “should.”

M-W also provided an archaic definition: have to; must.

From Copilot:

Used to indicate a mandatory obligation or a strong intention. It is often found in formal or legal contexts, such as "You shall attend the meeting, or you will be demoted.” [KC – This, compared to “should,” isn’t just a suggestion. It’s a more polite way to say, “you will.” For example, mother said “Timmy, you
shall accompany your father to the doctor, and I don’t want to hear ‘no’ again!”

There is more out there about which word to use with I, we, you, them, and other pronouns, but I’m going to skip the grammar and explain what I learned about law and order. Well,
not so much order, but definitely the law. In the legal system, should and
shall have caused lots of problems, so I’ll give you the basics in case you ever find yourself trying to define the legalese of a contract. This is from
LegalClarity.

"Shall" and "should" carry very different weight in legal documents, and courts don’t always agree on what they mean. Here’s how to read them clearly.

“Shall” creates a binding legal obligation, while “should” signals a recommendation. That one-word difference can determine whether ignoring a contract clause or statute exposes you to a lawsuit,
a penalty, or nothing at all.

When a statute or contract says a party “shall” do something, the default interpretation is that the action is mandatory. Courts ordinarily treat “shall” as creating a non-discretionary duty,
particularly when the same document also uses “may” for other provisions. If a lease says “the tenant shall maintain renter’s insurance throughout the lease term,” that tenant has a binding obligation, not a suggestion to consider.

“Should” carries a fundamentally different weight. Where “shall” imposes a duty, “should” recommends a course of action. A contract clause stating “the parties should attempt mediation before
filing suit” is encouraging mediation, not requiring it. Skipping that step won’t constitute a breach.

Failing to follow a “should” provision generally doesn’t expose you to penalties, contract termination, or statutory liability.

Maybe I need my own legal statement here? I do not guarantee the veracity of sites or language that is not my
own. How’s that? A cute puppy might help.

The other day I received some great information from one of you about something called an “orphaned negative.” An orphaned negative is a word that seems like it should have an opposite but doesn’t, for example, the word disgruntled. In English, we see the “dis” and expect an opposite to exist, such as displeased and its opposite, pleased. But if somebody is disgruntled, there is no opposite “gruntled.”

An orphaned negative is specifically a word where the prefix or suffix is negative, such as “dis-“ or “-less.” Similar words, like nonchalant, do not have an antonym (opposite) either, but because they don’t follow the exact rules for orphaned negatives, they are just called “unpaired words.”

I’ve included some examples below, most from Wikipedia. I’ve included definitions and notes on the words that are the expected opposites (but that we don’t use). Well, some people use them in humor. See Wikipedia for more examples, and Merriam-Webster for definitions.

Orphaned Negatives

Unpaired Words

Kara Church | Technical Editor, Advisory | KE – Documentation

Pronouns: she/her | Call via Teams | jackhenry.com

Editor’s Corner Archives: https://episystechpubs.com/

Dear Editrix,

As often typed in customer documentation referencing the whole “kit” of something (a complete collection, whole set of tools, etc.) that much seems clear. But what is a caboodle?

Sincerely,

Can I doodle a caboodle?

Dear Doodler,

The phrase “whole kit and caboodle” is an idiom that has been in the United States for a long time. I did some research on the following websites:

• The Grammarist
• The Online Etymology Dictionary
• Merriam-Webster

Here is my summation of the information from the three resources.

When someone says, “the whole kit and caboodle,” they are talking about all of the things in a group; everything. If there is a basketful of twenty ingredients and Chef Milo tells you to “Throw the whole kit and caboodle into the pot,” he means put everything into the pot. If he’s a stickler for the definition of “everything,” he might even be talking about the basket itself. Who knows? Maybe it is a basket made of pasta?

The phrase itself appears in the United States around late 1800s, but parts of the phrase have been around longer. Here is a breakdown:

• Kit (1785) – A soldier’s collection of personal items and supplies they carry; their belongings.
• Boodle – A crowd of people; collection; probably from Dutch boedel (property). Later used to refer to a lot of money obtained through nefarious means.
• Kit and boodle (1833-1855) – A combination of items within a group.
• The whole kit and caboodle (1884-present) – Everything (current definition)

The word “caboodle” is from adding “ca-“ to “boodle.” Why? I couldn’t find a precise answer. I’m guessing that someone was writing a limerick and they needed something to go with “boodle.”

Pat had a thought in his noodle

He decided to make apple strudel

He bought cinnamon, butter, and salt

Apples, sugar, raisins, and malt

And threw in the whole kit and caboodle.

Hmm. I don’t think I’d like his strudel very much. Malt? How about a chocolate shake instead?

Kara Church | Technical Editor, Advisory | KE – Documentation

Pronouns: she/her | Call via Teams | jackhenry.com

Editor’s Corner Archives: https://episystechpubs.com/

Dear Editrix,

I have a question: I am curious as to whether there are people – real people – named after these ordered levels, especially, the Latin ones, like Sextus and Octavus?

Sincerely,

The Inquisitor

Dear Inquisitor,

I guess my joke about Optimus Prime in my article about Latin terms of order was inspiring, huh? Well, first a reminder of the list of words we’re talking about:

0. Primus – primary
1. Secundus – secondary
2. Tertius – tertiary
3. Quartus – quaternary
4. Quintus – quinary
5. Sextus – senary
6. Septimus – septenary
7. Octavus – octonary
8. Nonus – nonary
9. Decimus – denary

And, as a lover of Roman history, I couldn’t wait to look this up. I searched for the two you mentioned, and found an article in Wikipedia.

The quick answer to your question is yes, there were people with names like Sextus and Octavus in Roman history. These names are called praenomen. Wikipedia translates that as a “personal name,” “given name,” “forename,” or as I would say: first name.

These names were used by both the common folk and the aristocrats, though their use faded over time. The name Sextus was the masculine name; Sexta was the feminine version. As last names (or surnames) Sextus developed into Sextia and Sextilia.

As we discussed before, these were the names for positions, such as first, second, third, etc. For first names, they usually meant the birth order of the child, such as second son, or fifth daughter. Some people say that it was also used for the month in which the child was born. (Though with the old Roman calendar the sixth month was August.)

Here are the more common names mentioned in the article:

Masculine:

· Quintus

· Sextus

· Septimus

· Octavius

· Nonus

· Decimus

Feminine:

· Prima

· Secunda

· Tertia

· Quarta

· Sexta

· Septima

· Octavia

· Nona

· Decima

I’m not sure if there wasn’t a name for the boys from one to four–Primus, Secundus, Tertus (LOL), Quartus—or the fifth girl (Quinta?), or maybe the article didn’t have evidence for these. Perhaps the first four boys and fifth girl got names instead of numbers? In any case, I hope that answers your questions!

Kara Church | Technical Editor, Advisory | KE – Documentation

Pronouns: she/her | Call via Teams | jackhenry.com

Editor’s Corner Archives: https://episystechpubs.com/