• Tweet

  • Post

  • Share

  • Save

  • Get PDF

  • Buy Copies

  • Print
Topic Images Inc./Getty Images

Many times, especially in business settings, people use words that they think they know — just don't. Although they do this in an endeavour to sound intelligent and sophisticated, it backfires desperately, considering fifty-fifty one small slip-up can cause an audience to focus on only that, non the speaker'south ideas. Certain, maxim the wrong word (usually) isn't a game-changer. But if you make that kind of mistake, it sets y'all upwards for a question that no one wants clients, coworkers, or employers to begin asking: "Are you really that smart?"

Call back it can't happen to you? We've heard horror stories: people laughing backside a prominent CEO's back for his not understanding the correct apply of a business term; a corporate lawyer proverb "tenant" (a renter) instead of "tenet" (a belief); an employee toasting her supervisor equally the "penultimate" leader (which doesn't mean "ultimate" just instead means "next to terminal").

Here, excerpted from our new volume, That Doesn't Mean What You Retrieve It Means, are nine terms or words that sound smart merely when used incorrectly make you sound the opposite, along with existent examples of their being misused, fatigued from business news reports, enquiry publications, and corporate press releases. (We've omitted attributions to protect the well-meaning writers who unwittingly committed the errors)

begs the question

"Fidelity might accept fired the last salvo by eliminating fees entirely. This begs the question as to whether Allegiance'south new funds incur any hidden costs or fees."

In spite of popular thought, "begs the question" is not a smart-sounding way of maxim "raises the question." It's really a formal logic term that means trying to show something based on a premise that itself needs to be proved. So leave "begs the question" where information technology technically belongs — in the realm of logic and law — and use the (correct) "raises the question" when that's what yous're trying to say.

impacts on

"They can clearly and simply explain what we have done and how it impacts on our interpretation of the data, ensuring our reports are understandable and actionable."

In a 2015 American Heritage Dictionary survey of language experts, 79% disapproved of using "impacts on" to mean "affect." Another 39% disapproved of using "bear on" to mean "affect" even without that preposition "on." The original (and nevertheless most common) significant of "bear upon" involves collisions. Just nowadays, you can use it to mean "to affect" (without any collisions). Only get out out that preposition "on." That might touch on (touch on) your business presentation.

in regard(s) to

"[I]due north regards to the new well, the production capacity of this beginning large size product well is remarkable."

This sentence is wrong. Not regarding the remarkable production capacity, but regarding "in regards to," which should be "in regard to." Even meliorate, just say "regarding" or "near." (For the record, "regards" with the "s" is correct in the phrase "as regards," where "regard" is a verb.) In regard to the phrase "in regard to," regard is a noun, and the singular — without the s — should always be used. The exception is when sending someone good wishes — "best regards" — or when giving your regards to, say, Broadway, as in the vocal. After all, you probably wouldn't want to wish Broadway only one regard.

less/fewer

"[S]tart-ups are leaving the heartland and are employing less people."

Technically, at least according to some give-and-take snobs, it should be "fewer people," not "less people." Why? It all depends on if and what yous're counting. A few basic rules:

  • Apply "fewer" for numbered, countable things, specially people or other plural nouns. ("Fewer than 20 people were there.")
  • Use "less" for things that tin't exist counted, at least reasonably. ("There'southward less sand at the beach.")
  • Employ "less" with numbers when they are a unmarried or total unit, normally with "than." ("Less than l percent of us went to the meeting.") This can be catchy, because frequently yous'll see numbers in the plural — as in "He has less than a 1000000 dollars" — that presumably have been counted (as in rule i). Simply since hither we're actually talking virtually total amounts of nonhuman things, use less. (Don't blame us — those are the basic rules that many people follow. Nevertheless, it'due south all less — non fewer! — difficult than yous'd think.)

methodology

"We have…failed to require that the IRS utilize only secure and reliable authentication methodologies…"

Methodology is an annoying word that has oozed into a lot of places, especially authorities documents and annual reports, probably because information technology sounds important…and pretentious. The word to use instead is "method." The "-logy" tacked onto the terminate of method transforms it into the report of methods. (That -logy ending comes from the ancient Greek λογίa for "the study of.") And then methodology has its place in English — it'south merely that it should stay at that place and not substitute for method. (One interesting note: The IRS itself, in contrast to the senator speaking about the IRS, nigh always uses the give-and-take method instead of methodology. Count on tax professionals to use a more than economic word.)

moot

"Whether you need to appoint a Data Protection Officeholder or not is a mute-betoken."

Really, information technology's not a mute point at all, considering a signal isn't speechless. It should exist moot, not mute. But fifty-fifty spelled right, moot is tough to use correctly. The use of moot is, well, moot…and nosotros're non beingness beautiful. What we're proverb is that the meaning of moot is "open to debate" — which is the fourth dimension-honored definition of moot. But by the mid-1800s, moot also began significant "something not worth because." The idea was that something debatable is of no practical value, so not worth bothering with. So sometimes moot is used to hateful "definitely not debatable" because the point is so immaterial. This change in meaning is primarily North American, and it is 1 that has stuck, although language purists argue about it. Our advice: Cull another word.

statistically significant

"Facebook is 'a positive, pregnant predictor of divorce rate….' [T]he report's authors feel they're noticing something that's genuinely statistically significant."

You come across it all the time nowadays: A written report has shown something worrisome! The findings are statistically significant! Uh-oh! But statistically significant doesn't necessarily mean that the results were significant in the sense of "Wow!" It simply means that they signify that whatsoever was observed has merely a low probability of beingness due to chance. The trouble is, in nonstatistical use, significant means something noteworthy or of import. So nonstatistical types come across "statistically significant" and think it refers to something large. But actually a study can find something statistically pregnant that has only a tiny effect. For instance, Facebook could increment the risk of divorce by a statistically pregnant 1%. Big deal.

unique

"The Skyline Group of Companies is 1 of Canada's fastest-growing and most unique investment management organizations…"

Unique means existence the "only one of its kind; unlike anything else." So something can't be the "about unique" — it can just be unique. Only times are changing. Some dictionaries, like Merriam-Webster, now also ascertain unique as "boggling," although Merriam-Webster does say that this "mutual usage is nonetheless objected to by some." Include us in the ranks of the "some" (although we're non as impassioned equally the New York Times volume reviewer who called this usage of unique an "indefensible outrage!"). Let'due south keep unique meaning, well, unique. For plural things that we want to call unique, nosotros can instead say "unusual" or "exceptional." So we could say that Skyline is an "infrequent" investment management organisation…but allow's leave that to the PR department.

utilize

"Amidst the goals of the partnership will be to apply Vium'southward engineering to track digital biomarkers…"

Substitute "used" for "utilized." Does it brand a difference? The simply one we can see is that utilized is longer. So why use it? Yep, "utilize" can be distinguished from "employ" when something is serving a purpose that it wasn't intended for ("She utilized her expressionless tablet as a doorstop"), but it's a slight stardom and "use" tin withal work. Utilize tin also mean "to convert to apply," most ofttimes in scientific writing. ("The body utilizes carbohydrates.") Even hither, apply can work, although it sounds a lot less scientific for some reason. In general, employ is only a fancy way of saying utilize, and is usually best not utilized used at all.

These 9 words are only the tip of an iceberg. From "a priori" to "untenable," words can piece of work for you or against yous. And that'due south our last (not penultimate!) word, at least in this article, on the words that can trip y'all up.