5 MIN READ

4 Grammar Rules You Don’t Need Anymore

Think grammar rules are set in stone? Think again — here are four rules you can stop worrying about.

by Jennifer A. Freeman
Chalkboard and chairs inside a classroom

Dig out your old grammar workbooks. Got them? OK, now throw them away. That’s right — we’re giving you permission to break some of those old-school rules. The English language is constantly evolving, meaning rules that were once drilled into your head by schoolteachers are now more like guidelines, and sometimes it’s OK to ignore them. Here are four grammar rules you no longer need to stress about. (We’re breaking one of the rules right away.)

1. Don’t end sentences with prepositions

“You don’t know with whom you’re messing!” is probably not something you’d hear during a heated argument — it doesn’t quite roll off the tongue. Chopping and restructuring prepositional phrases was probably one of those lessons touted by your seventh grade English teacher, but the need for such a rule is questionable at best. Avoiding a preposition at the end makes things wordy, doesn’t do anything to further clarify the meaning, and can make the speaker sound awkwardly pretentious.

Merriam-Webster argues in favor of ditching this rule, too, claiming that it was made up by grammarians trying to force English to fit Latin rules. Seventeenth-century linguists argued that because a preposition can’t be stranded in Latin, the same should be true for English. But Latin departs from English in myriad ways, the least of which is the idea of stranded prepositions. By the 20th century, almost all style and usage guides had given up any argument against the terminal preposition, so there’s no reason to twist your wording into awkward constructions. 

The one exception to this rule abandonment concerns unnecessary tag-ons of prepositions. This means adding prepositions at the end of a sentence when you don’t need to. For example, “Where is this bus going to?” can easily be streamlined to “Where is this bus going?” Fewer words make a more concise sentence.

Advertisement

2. Don’t split infinitives

“To go boldly where no one has gone before” just doesn’t have the same ring as Captain Picard’s tagline “To boldly go where no one has gone before.” While it is true that the adverb “boldly” is modifying the infinitive “to go,” placing the adverb before the verb gives emphasis to the special intent of the verb before the listener hears it. Trekkies know that something bold is about to happen.

The rule of not splitting infinitives is yet another carryover from Latin. Latin infinitives are a single word, indicating to some linguists that English infinitives should be treated as a single unit. But again, English is not Latin. Split infinitives have been used by some of English’s best writers, including Benjamin Franklin, William Wordsworth, Samuel Johnson, and George Bernard Shaw, so why not you? 

We’ll add a caveat here that we’re not recommending all infinitives should be split; we’re simply saying that it’s not a grammatical crime. Leaving the infinitive intact is preferable in most cases, especially in formal or academic writing. But in cases of creative writing, or when you’re looking for a certain style or emphasis, don’t let the rule hold you back.  

Advertisement

3. Never begin a sentence with a conjunction

But since writing is communication, clarity can only be a virtue. And although there is no substitute for merit in writing, clarity comes closest to being one,” William Strunk Jr. & E. B. White wrote in The Elements of Style.

Beginning a sentence with a conjunction has long been considered a grave grammatical sin. But doing so helps to keep thoughts separated and will save you from a confusing cacophony of commas, not to mention allow your reader to breathe between thoughts. Conjunctions, sometimes recognized by using the mnemonic FANBOYS (“for,” “and,” “nor,” “but,” “or,” “yet,” and “so”) but more accurately by Merriam-Webster’s mnemonic WWWFLASHYBONNBAN (“whether,” “well,” “why,” “for,” “likewise,” “and,” “so,” “however,” “yet,” “but,” “or,” “nor,” “now,” “because,” “also,” and “nevertheless”), have been used to start sentences for over a millennium.

The Bible, for example, uses conjunction-led sentences generously:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.

As further evidence, the AP Stylebook and the Chicago Manual of Style both permit the use of conjunctions to start sentences.

4. Never start a sentence with “hopefully”

“Hopefully, the taxi will arrive soon.” “Hopefully” has been unfairly singled out by grammarians as the adverb you should never use to start a sentence. According to the rule, the aforementioned example sentence means that the taxi is acting in a hopeful manner, something that is impossible for an inanimate object. Instead, placing the speaker as the hopeful one would turn it into “It is hoped that the taxi will arrive soon” or “I am hopeful that the taxi will arrive soon.” 

But those wordings are unnecessarily awkward and formal, and English can bend for the sake of conversation. Besides, rarely do grammarians take issue with other adverbs such as “clearly,” “unbelievably,” or “fortunately” modifying the following sentence.

Hopefully, you’re able to concisely write to someone without worrying about unnecessary grammar rules. But if they can’t appreciate your interpretation of the English language, find new friends to share your writing with.

Featured image credit: Ivan Aleksic/ Unsplash
Jennifer A. Freeman
Senior Editor, Word Smarts
Jennifer A. Freeman is the Senior Editor of Word Smarts and Word Daily. When she's not searching for a perfect synonym or reaching "Genius" level on Spelling Bee, she's playing with her Welsh Terrier in Greenville, SC.
Advertisement
2 MIN READ

What Is the ‘Gossip Tense’?

The Turkish language has a clever way of keeping the rumor mill running smoothly. “Gossip tense” is a unique way to communicate hearsay without misleading the listener. Here’s how it works.

by Rachel Gresh
Close-up of whispering in someone's ear

Gossip has a bad reputation. The definition of gossip is “to retail facts, rumors, or behind-the-scenes information about other persons,” but the practice is known for spreading unfounded rumors and secrets about people who aren’t able to refute them. However, practically everyone is guilty of sharing a tidbit of information or relaying some insider knowledge. As the famed journalist Barbara Walters once said, “Show me someone who never gossips, and I will show you someone who is not interested in people.” It feels good to gossip sometimes, and the Turkish language has an interesting feature that supports sharing information. It’s known informally as the “gossip tense.”

This grammatical form highlights when information is secondhand, a quality that would be useful in all languages. In Turkish, using this tense isn’t just a stylistic choice; it’s expected if you’re sharing unverified information. It helps the listener distinguish between established facts and mere hearsay, so failing to use the correct tense can lead to misunderstanding.

Despite its catchy nickname, the term “gossip tense” isn’t technically accurate. This form is actually an add-on suffix that linguists refer to as an “evidential.” In Turkish, this is indicated by a set of suffixes: -mış, -miş, -muş, or -müş. The choice of suffix depends not on how juicy the gossip is, but on the vowel harmony of the word being modified. In Turkish, the vowels in a word and in its suffixes must “match” their sound so that everything flows smoothly.

Depending on the context, these suffixes express uncertainty in various ways, closely meaning something like “I heard that,” “apparently,” “it seems,” or “they say.” Here’s how the suffix “-mış” can transform the verb “almak” (“to buy”) into gossip:

  • Almak: Verb meaning “she/he bought”
  • Almış: The verb is transformed into “I heard that she/he bought” by adding the suffix –mış
  • Example sentence: O pahalı çantayı sonunda almış. / “I heard that she/he finally bought that expensive purse.”

So, while “gossip tense” doesn’t necessarily indicate a scandal, it is a valuable tool in the Turkish language that keeps everyone — even gossips — a little bit more honest.

Featured image credit: RuslanDashinsky/ iStock
Rachel Gresh
Word Smarts Writer
Rachel is a Washington, D.C.-based freelance writer. When she's not writing, you can find her wandering through a museum, exploring a new city, or advocating the importance of the Oxford comma.
Advertisement
2 MIN READ

Was There a Real Cigar From ‘Close, but No Cigar’?

Don’t let the mention of cigars fool you — this is more than just a puff piece. Let’s take a look at the origins of this phrase, which can be traced back to early 20th-century carnivals.

by Bennett Kleinman
99% cubes

The phrase “close, but no cigar” means “that a guess was almost correct or that an effort was almost sufficient.” You can use it to describe a hockey shot that just misses the net, a recipe that’s nearly perfect but needs more salt, or a 99/100 score on a big exam. Rarely is this saying used in the context of actual cigars, though that wasn’t always true. In fact, the phrase was quite literal when it was coined by early carnival barkers.

When you’re playing the midway games at a carnival today, the prizes are typically massive stuffed animals and plastic tchotchkes. But as traveling carnivals rose to prominence in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, many games of chance were targeted at adults rather than children. Carnival barkers lured them in by offering up prizes such as whiskey bottles and cigars.

An early written reference to these games of chance appears in Robert Machray’s 1902 book The Night Side of London: “Should you score twenty you will win a cigar.” During the decades that followed, it became common for carnival barkers to shout phrases akin to “close, but no cigar” when folks playing the difficult games inevitably came up short.

The exact phrase in question showed up in print in 1929, when it appeared in an edition of the Princeton Alumni Weekly to describe coming up short in a competition. Then the 1935 Western film Annie Oakley featured the line “Close, Colonel, but no cigar!” Though cigars as prizes became less common as carnival games began appealing more to children, the phrase still stuck around thereafter.

Featured image credit: Sviatlana/ Adobe Stock
Bennett Kleinman
Staff Writer
Bennett Kleinman is a New York City-based staff writer for Inbox Studio. He is also a freelance comedy writer, devoted New York Yankees and New Jersey Devils fan, and thinks plain seltzer is the best drink ever invented.
Advertisement
3 MIN READ

Latin Words and Phrases We Still Use in Modern English

Latin never really died — it just evolved. Here are some of the original Latin words still shaping the way we speak today.

by Stewart Edelstein
ancient roman epigraph on a marble wall

Depending on how you count, more than 60% of modern English words derive from Latin and Greek. But comparatively few of these words retain the spelling from about 3,000 years ago, when ancient Romans wrote, read, and spoke in Latin. 

These intact Latin words (meaning they’re spelled the same as the originals) are lurking everywhere, although some are more obvious than others.

Intact Latin Abbreviations

Many abbreviations conceal intact Latin. We awaken in the a.m., the ante meridiem, which translates to “before noon,” and go to sleep in the p.m., post meridiem, corresponding to “after noon.” We use shorthand terms such as “i.e.” (id est, Latin meaning “that is”) and “e.g.” (Latin for exempli gratia, meaning “for example”). “Etc.” is an abbreviation for et cetera, meaning “and others.” “A.D.” means anno domini, “year of our Lord,” with reference to the birth of Jesus.

We sometimes refer to dates as circa, “approximately,” or draft a CV, curriculum vitae, which translates to “course of life.” Academic references also are chock-full of Latin abbreviations, such as “ibid.,” short for ibidem (“in the same place”); “id.,” from idem (“the same”); “op. cit.,” which abbreviates opere citato (“the work cited”); and “sic” (“thus”).

Legal Latin

Lawyers and judges use intact Latin, too. The “v” in Montague v. Capulet is versus, meaning “against,” seen in another form in vice versa, “the other way around.” During divorce proceedings, a guardian for children is sometimes appointed ad litem, which means “until a final judgment.” Some briefs submitted to the court are from amicus curiae, “friends of the court,” and someone caught in the act is in pari delicto. When lawyers work for free, they do so pro bono. A person representing themself in court is pro se. And when lawyers have no argument on the merits of the case, they might (improperly) make ad hominem attacks on their opponents. 

Everyday Latin 

Our daily vocabulary is also full of intact Latin. Of particular interest is comparing the original Latin meaning with our modern English usage — they’re always related, but typically with a twist.

Acumen

Latin: A point, sting

Modern: A sharp intellect

Alibi

Latin: Elsewhere

Modern: Where a criminal defendant alleges he or she was at the relevant time

Arena 

Latin: Sand, required to soak up the blood in the Roman Colosseum, after sanguinary gladiatorial battles

Modern: A place for entertainment and sporting events

Bonus 

Latin: Something good

Modern: A payment beyond a normal paycheck; a reward for good performance

Formula 

Latin: Contract

Modern: A math rule or list of ingredients

Forum

Latin: Marketplace

Modern: A place or an event to exchange ideas

Raptor

Latin: Robber

Modern: A carnivorous bird that hunts prey and robs nests

Trivia 

Latin: Where three roads meet

Modern: A good place for people to gather for gossip

Video

Latin: I see

Modern: A piece of media that you watch

Featured image credit: rarrarorro/ iStock
Stewart Edelstein
Word Smarts Writer
Stewart Edelstein has created word games for Merriam-Webster and has been a guest wordsmith for “A Word A Day.” He is author of “Dubious Doublets: A Delightful Compendium of Word Pairs of Common Origin, from Aardvark/Porcelain to Zodiac/Whiskey,” and several other books about etymology, and he teaches adult-ed courses on that subject. He is also a columnist for “The Berkshire Eagle” in Western Massachusetts, which publishes his “Word of the Week” column, each based on a word currently in the news.
Advertisement
2 MIN READ

Am I Using ‘Proven’ Wrong?

Have you “proven” your point or “proved” it? Let’s settle this once and for all.

by Rachel Gresh
Courtroom legal case conversation

You’ve probably heard the phrase “innocent until proven guilty” — it’s a staple in legal dramas and courtroom jargon. But you won’t hear anyone say “proved guilty” instead. Why is that? While both “proved” and “proven” are valid past participles of the verb “prove,” only “proven” is commonly used as an adjective. In fact, some guides dictate that “proven” should be used only as an adjective and “proved” as the past participle. But as Merriam-Webster and other dictionaries report, both “proven” and “proved” developed as the past tense of “prove,” and they’re mostly interchangeable in that usage. 

In casual conversation, you can use whichever word feels more natural: “I have proved/proven my point.” Merriam-Webster notes that the past participle “proven” is now just as common as “proved,” though this wasn’t always the case. During the 19th century, grammarians often dismissed it as incorrect. Most writers of the time adhered to “proved” — except for famed poet Lord Alfred Tennyson, who favored “proven” for its two-syllable rhythm: “For nothing worthy proving can be proven, / Nor yet disproven.” 

However, if you’re using the word as an attributive adjective, “proven” is the better choice, as in, “She has a proven ability to meet her goals.” Some style guides reflect this distinction. For example, the Associated Press Stylebook recommends using “proven” only as an adjective (“The cough syrup was a proven remedy”), while using “proved” as the past participle (“He was proved innocent”).

If you’re not required to adhere to AP Stylebook rules (as we do on Word Smarts), you have more leniency with “proven.” Since the 19th century, “proven” has continued to gain ground in American usage, with a steady foothold in legal contexts and everyday conversation. In the end, the “right” choice may depend on your style guide or, like Tennyson, your ear for rhythm. 

Featured image credit: AnnaStills/ iStock
Rachel Gresh
Word Smarts Writer
Rachel is a Washington, D.C.-based freelance writer. When she's not writing, you can find her wandering through a museum, exploring a new city, or advocating the importance of the Oxford comma.
Advertisement
2 MIN READ

What Is Coincidence vs. Irony?

Coincidences are labeled as irony all the time. Here’s how to distinguish between the two.

by Rachel Gresh
Coincidence word in dictionary

Despite what singer Alanis Morissette told us, rain on your wedding day isn’t actually ironic — it’s simply a coincidence. Although used interchangeably by countless English speakers, coincidence and irony are distinct concepts with different meanings.

Take those viral videos where both partners propose at the same time. Many viewers call the moment “ironic,” but in fact, it’s a coincidence — an unexpected overlap — and not an example of irony. A coincidence occurs when two or more unlikely events happen simultaneously by chance, yet they seem to have some connection. For example, discovering that you and your neighbor share the same birthday is a coincidence. Or when you’re thinking of a song and it starts playing on the radio minutes later — that’s also a coincidence.

Coincidence is frequently confused with situational irony, which involves an outcome that is very different from what one would logically expect. There’s a layer of unmet expectations or a reversal of intentions. Consider this real-life example: During a particularly snowy winter in my hometown, the roof of a roofing company collapsed under the weight of snow — textbook situational irony. Other examples include a fire station catching fire or a tailor wearing an ill-fitted suit.

That said, Merriam-Webster notes the word “ironic” has long been applied to curious or coincidental events. While some grammarians argue against this usage, modern dictionaries now acknowledge it as an evolving example of the rhetorical device. However, if you’re aiming for precision, knowing the difference is key: If the outcome defies expectations by proving the opposite, it may be an ironic twist. But if it’s merely an unlikely overlap, it’s just a coincidence.

Featured image credit: Lobro78/ iStock
Rachel Gresh
Word Smarts Writer
Rachel is a Washington, D.C.-based freelance writer. When she's not writing, you can find her wandering through a museum, exploring a new city, or advocating the importance of the Oxford comma.
Advertisement
2 MIN READ

How Did ‘Full of Awe’ Turn Into ‘Awful’?

“Awful,” an adjective to describe something horrible, stems from a term closely associated with wonderment. So why the change? It involves kings, gods, and years of linguistic evolution.

by Rachel Gresh
Happy face block in background, sad face block in foreground

English is full of surprises, as illustrated by the word “awful” — its origin implied something grand, but it evolved to signify something terrible. If you look at the composition of the word, you find the noun “awe” and the suffix “-ful,” giving us “full of awe.” So how did the adjective come to describe something bad?

To understand, we have to go back to the root of “awe.” In Middle English, “awe” (spelled “aue” or earlier, “aghe”) meant “fear, terror, and great reverence,” the kind you might feel in the presence of something overwhelmingly powerful. It was derived from the Old Norse “agi,” meaning “fright.” At the time, this feeling of veneration was most often associated with a king or a god. It wasn’t necessarily negative, but it was humbling. During the Middle Ages, “awful” (also spelled “aghful”) originally meant something akin to “awe-inspiring” — powerful, majestic, or even terrifying in its greatness.

Today, the word “awe” on its own has a connotation more of wonderment or even pride (“I’m in awe of my brother’s skill”) than fear, but in the evolution of “awful,” the fearful side of “awe” gained traction, becoming mainstream by the 19th century. Now “awful” is firmly established as a term for something “extremely disagreeable or objectionable,” as in, “This movie is awful.” However, the word is still used informally to mean “exceedingly great,” as in, “An awful lot of people left the theater early,” or as an adverb: “I’m awfully glad you could come to the party.” 

Interestingly, this linguistic shift reflects how we psychologically experience awe. According to psychologist Robert Plutchik’s Wheel of Emotions (which helps depict how emotions are related), awe sits right between amazement and terror — a blend of both surprise and fear that has been reflected throughout the term’s evolution.

Featured image credit: oatawa/ iStock
Rachel Gresh
Word Smarts Writer
Rachel is a Washington, D.C.-based freelance writer. When she's not writing, you can find her wandering through a museum, exploring a new city, or advocating the importance of the Oxford comma.
Advertisement
2 MIN READ

What’s the Difference Between ‘Usually’ and ‘Often’?

In casual conversation, we use the adverbs “usually” and “often” interchangeably, but using the correct term can improve clarity, especially in professional settings.

by Rachel Gresh
Woman waiting for train in the rain

The ambiguous use of similar words is part of what makes English so complicated for learners and native speakers alike. For instance, take the adverbs “often” and “usually.” Both words indicate something that happens a lot. You might say, “I often take the train when it rains.” If you replace “often” with “usually,” the overall meaning remains roughly the same. However, there is a nuance to these terms that seems to have been lost in modern conversation. The key distinction lies in the frequency called for.

According to Merriam-Webster, there’s a distinct difference between the usage of these adverbs. “Usually” refers to things that occur “most often” or “as a rule,” while “often” is less strict, meaning “many times” or “frequently” — the activity in question isn’t necessarily occurring on a set schedule.

Consider these two examples: “We usually go for a walk after dinner” and “She usually reads on the train ride home.” Each of these activities is recurring and regular. In contrast, when something happens “often,” it may not be habitual, even if it occurs frequently. For instance, “They often go to the movies on the weekend” suggests that they go frequently, but it’s not an expected activity. If going to the movies is a weekly ritual, you might instead say, “They usually go to the movies on Saturday night.”

A worksheet for an “English as a Second Language” class from Portland Community College provides more precise explanations as to the percentage of time an activity must occur for a frequency adverb to apply. When something happens 100% of the time, “always” is the adverb to use. “Usually” comes in at 80%, “often” at 60%, “sometimes” at 40%, “seldom” and “rarely” at 20%, and if something occurs 0% of the time, that’s the time for “never.”While this mathematical parsing isn’t a strict rule, it might aid in visualization, helping you choose the perfect adverb for your context.

So, while both terms suggest regularity, “usually” implies that the action is part of a default routine, and “often” just means it happens a lot, without being a set habit.

Featured image credit: eclipse_images/ iStock
Rachel Gresh
Word Smarts Writer
Rachel is a Washington, D.C.-based freelance writer. When she's not writing, you can find her wandering through a museum, exploring a new city, or advocating the importance of the Oxford comma.
Advertisement
2 MIN READ

Is It ‘Beck and Call’ or ‘Beckon Call’?

If you’re wondering whether it’s “beck and call” or “beckon call,” you can always call the musician Beck and ask his opinion. Or just keep reading, because the answer is right here.

by Bennett Kleinman
Man standing out it crowd, people following

The English language is full of eggcorns — words or phrases where correct spellings are accidentally swapped out for similar-sounding alternatives. Just picture “scapegoat” vs. “escape goat” or “free rein” vs. “free reign.” While spelling rarely matters if you’re saying them aloud, there are clearly correct and incorrect versions. This brings us to the topic at hand — “beck and call” vs. “beckon call” — so let’s examine which is the correct term.

Before we get into the spelling, let’s define this idiom. Merriam-Webster says it means “always ready to do whatever someone asks.” You can use this phrase in a positive light, in reference to someone who’s always willing to lend help. Alternatively, you can use it in the context of an entitled sort who insists that everyone cater to their whims.

Now for the spelling — “beck and call” is 100% correct, and here’s why. In this phrase, “call” is a noun meaning “demand; requirement.” “Beck” is a noun meaning “a beckoning gesture.” So to be at someone’s beck and call is to be ready for any summoning gesture and demand they make. The confusion comes in because “beckon” is a real word — it’s  a synonym of the verb “summon.” But if you substituted “beckon” for “beck,” it wouldn’t make grammatical sense, as the verb “beckon” and the noun “call” would clash. “Beckoning call,” on the other hand — as in a call meant to summon someone — would make grammatical sense. However, that’s an entirely different phrase and doesn’t sound quite as identical.

As for “beck and call,” there are several ways to use it. You can say, “I’m at your beck and call,” when talking in the first person, or say, “The boss demanded that his assistants be at his beck and call,” if talking about others. These are just a few possible examples. We hope we’ve cleared up this common eggcorn.

Featured image credit: studio-fi/ iStock
Bennett Kleinman
Staff Writer
Bennett Kleinman is a New York City-based staff writer for Inbox Studio. He is also a freelance comedy writer, devoted New York Yankees and New Jersey Devils fan, and thinks plain seltzer is the best drink ever invented.
Advertisement
3 MIN READ

What Is a Retronym?

Technology changes fast — and so do our words. Labels such as “analog clock” and “manual transmission” are retronyms, words that have been created to distinguish from another form.

by Stewart Edelstein
Different types of guitars in a music store

Innovation sometimes requires differentiation between two or more types of the same thing. For example, at one time a guitar was, well, just a guitar. But technology progressed, and beginning in the 1930s, adjectives were required to differentiate between acoustic guitars and electric guitars.

These are retronyms — terms adopted to distinguish an older version from more recent versions. They’re typically created by adding an adjective before a base term to describe similar items. “Retronym” is from the Latin retro, meaning “backward,” and the Greek ónoma, meaning “name.”  

And so it is with numerous other innovations, not just the guitar. “Radio” became “AM radio” and “FM” radio. Clocks became analog clocks and digital clocks.    

And what about eggs? We now have regular eggs, cage-free eggs, and pasture-raised eggs. Cage-free hens are housed indoors but not in individual cages, and can roam freely, engaging in natural behaviors; pasture-raised hens have significant access to outdoor areas for roaming and foraging, for even more natural living.

Advertisement

Similarly, once upon a time, it was simple to shop for milk. But now we have a variety of choices, including whole milk, 1% milk, 2% milk, skim milk, almond milk, cashew milk, soy milk, lactose-free milk, evaporated milk, condensed milk, goat milk, and, where legal, even raw milk. You wouldn’t want to risk buying the wrong milk.

Retronyms even affect something as simple as a signature. There was a time when you only signed using pen and ink. With the advent of facsimile machines, we started using fax signatures. Then, with the internet, e-signatures. Now, to distinguish when an old-fashioned pen-and-ink signature is required (as for deeds and wills, for example), we use the term “wet signature.”

You likely don’t realize how many things you come into contact with every day that have become retronyms because of some development in the technology or usage of the product. 

  • liquid soap and bar soap
  • cloth diaper and disposable diaper
  • manual transmission and automatic transmission
  • conventional oven and microwave oven
  • snail mail and email
  • road bike, mountain bike, and e-bike
  • brick-and-mortar store and online store
  • hardcover book and e-book

We’ll continue to need retronyms in language as long as we keep innovating — the latest seems to be human-created and AI-created, available to add to any digital content.

Featured image credit: ozgurcankaya/ iStock
Stewart Edelstein
Word Smarts Writer
Stewart Edelstein has created word games for Merriam-Webster and has been a guest wordsmith for “A Word A Day.” He is author of “Dubious Doublets: A Delightful Compendium of Word Pairs of Common Origin, from Aardvark/Porcelain to Zodiac/Whiskey,” and several other books about etymology, and he teaches adult-ed courses on that subject. He is also a columnist for “The Berkshire Eagle” in Western Massachusetts, which publishes his “Word of the Week” column, each based on a word currently in the news.
Advertisement