• Tweet

  • Post

  • Share

  • Salvage

  • Get PDF

  • Buy Copies

  • Print
Topic Images Inc./Getty Images

Many times, especially in business settings, people use words that they think they know — merely don't. Although they do this in an endeavour to sound intelligent and sophisticated, it backfires badly, because even one small-scale slip-upward can crusade an audience to focus on only that, not the speaker's ideas. Sure, maxim the wrong word (usually) isn't a game-changer. But if you brand that kind of mistake, it sets y'all up for a question that no one wants clients, coworkers, or employers to begin asking: "Are you actually that smart?"

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

Here, excerpted from our new volume, That Doesn't Mean What You Think Information technology Means, are 9 terms or words that sound smart but when used incorrectly make you lot sound the opposite, forth with existent examples of their being misused, drawn from business news reports, research publications, and corporate printing releases. (We've omitted attributions to protect the well-meaning writers who unwittingly committed the errors)

begs the question

"Fidelity might have fired the last salvo by eliminating fees entirely. This begs the question equally to whether Fidelity'south new funds incur whatsoever hidden costs or fees."

In spite of popular thought, "begs the question" is non a smart-sounding way of saying "raises the question." It'due south actually a formal logic term that ways trying to prove something based on a premise that itself needs to be proved. And so leave "begs the question" where it technically belongs — in the realm of logic and law — and employ the (correct) "raises the question" when that's what you're trying to say.

impacts on

"They can conspicuously and just explicate what we have washed and how it impacts on our interpretation of the information, ensuring our reports are understandable and actionable."

In a 2015 American Heritage Dictionary survey of linguistic communication experts, 79% disapproved of using "impacts on" to hateful "affect." Another 39% disapproved of using "impact" to mean "affect" fifty-fifty without that preposition "on." The original (and notwithstanding most common) pregnant of "impact" involves collisions. But nowadays, you lot can use information technology to mean "to affect" (without whatsoever collisions). Only exit out that preposition "on." That might touch (affect) your business presentation.

in regard(s) to

"[I]n regards to the new well, the production chapters of this starting time large size production well is remarkable."

This sentence is incorrect. Non regarding the remarkable production capacity, but regarding "in regards to," which should exist "in regard to." Even better, just say "regarding" or "about." (For the record, "regards" with the "s" is right in the phrase "as regards," where "regard" is a verb.) In regard to the phrase "in regard to," regard is a noun, and the atypical — 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 to the lowest degree according to some word snobs, it should be "fewer people," not "less people." Why? It all depends on if and what you're counting. A few basic rules:

  • Employ "fewer" for numbered, countable things, especially people or other plural nouns. ("Fewer than 20 people were in that location.")
  • Use "less" for things that can't be counted, at least reasonably. ("There'south less sand at the beach.")
  • Use "less" with numbers when they are a unmarried or total unit of measurement, normally with "than." ("Less than 50 pct of us went to the coming together.") This tin can be tricky, because often you'll run across numbers in the plural — equally in "He has less than a million dollars" — that presumably have been counted (as in rule 1). Just since hither we're really talking almost full amounts of nonhuman things, utilise less. (Don't arraign us — those are the basic rules that many people follow. Nonetheless, it's all less — non fewer! — difficult than you'd recollect.)

methodology

"We take…failed to crave 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 almanac reports, probably because it sounds important…and pretentious. The word to apply instead is "method." The "-logy" tacked onto the end of method transforms information technology into the report of methods. (That -logy ending comes from the aboriginal Greek λογίa for "the report of.") And so methodology has its place in English language — it's just that it should stay there and not substitute for method. (One interesting note: The IRS itself, in dissimilarity to the senator speaking about the IRS, most always uses the word method instead of methodology. Count on tax professionals to use a more economical word.)

moot

"Whether you need to appoint a Information Protection Officer or not is a mute-betoken."

Really, information technology's not a mute point at all, because a point isn't speechless. It should be moot, non mute. But even spelled right, moot is tough to use correctly. The utilize of moot is, well, moot…and nosotros're not being cute. What we're maxim is that the pregnant of moot is "open to debate" — which is the fourth dimension-honored definition of moot. Merely past the mid-1800s, moot also began meaning "something not worth considering." The idea was that something debatable is of no practical value, so not worth bothering with. And then sometimes moot is used to mean "definitely non debatable" because the point is then immaterial. This modify in meaning is primarily North American, and it is 1 that has stuck, although language purists contend about it. Our advice: Cull another word.

statistically significant

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

You come across it all the fourth dimension nowadays: A study has shown something worrisome! The findings are statistically significant! Uh-oh! Simply statistically significant doesn't necessarily mean that the results were significant in the sense of "Wow!" Information technology only ways that they signify that whatsoever was observed has but a depression probability of being due to chance. The problem is, in nonstatistical use, significant means something noteworthy or of import. So nonstatistical types see "statistically significant" and think information technology refers to something large. But actually a study can find something statistically significant that has just a tiny effect. For example, Facebook could increment the risk of divorce by a statistically meaning 1%. Large bargain.

unique

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

Unique ways being the "simply 1 of its kind; unlike anything else." And then something can't exist the "most unique" — it tin merely be unique. But times are changing. Some dictionaries, like Merriam-Webster, at present also define unique as "extraordinary," although Merriam-Webster does say that this "common usage is still objected to by some." Include united states in the ranks of the "some" (although nosotros're not equally impassioned every bit the New York Times book reviewer who called this usage of unique an "indefensible outrage!"). Let's continue unique meaning, well, unique. For plural things that we desire to call unique, we tin can instead say "unusual" or "exceptional." So we could say that Skyline is an "exceptional" investment management organization…merely let's leave that to the PR department.

utilise

"Among the goals of the partnership will be to apply Vium's technology to track digital biomarkers…"

Substitute "used" for "utilized." Does it make a departure? The but i we tin meet is that utilized is longer. So why utilize information technology? Yeah, "utilize" can exist distinguished from "use" when something is serving a purpose that it wasn't intended for ("She utilized her dead tablet as a doorstop"), but information technology's a slight distinction and "apply" tin can still work. Utilize can also mean "to catechumen to utilize," near frequently in scientific writing. ("The body utilizes carbohydrates.") Fifty-fifty here, use tin piece of work, although it sounds a lot less scientific for some reason. In full general, utilize is just a fancy way of saying utilise, and is commonly best not utilized used at all.

These nine words are only the tip of an iceberg. From "a priori" to "untenable," words can work for you or against you lot. And that's our last (not penultimate!) discussion, at to the lowest degree in this article, on the words that can trip you up.