Comments on: Anathema

By: Toby O'B

Toby O'B — Sat, 24 Aug 2019 16:39:39 +0000

And I just found your reply, Edward, by searching for the same reason. I’m thinking I may still use “anathemic” – despite that annoying red underline to scold me.

By: Edward Raso

Edward Raso — Thu, 11 Feb 2016 15:42:48 +0000

I found this thread by searching if I might modify ‘Anathema’ to ‘Anathemic’ to make it an adjective. I see now that I cannot. This would solve the nound/adjective hybrid problem, IMHO.

By: Mary Jeddore Blakney

Mary Jeddore Blakney — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 01:13:12 +0000

I think C Le Verdic was referring to the word hypocrisy and how we use it, not accusing you or anyone else of being hypocritical. Here’s an example sentence: “I think his pro-family rhetoric is nothing but hypocrisy.” It seems to be a pattern in English that we don’t use articles with most character qualities or personal attributes. I think that’s because we see them as ubiquitous abstracts that people can tap into, not as individual items that people can own. Saying a hypocrisy, a generosity or an anathema would imply that these things come in units that can be counted.

By: Dan S.

Dan S. — Sun, 10 Jan 2016 02:50:33 +0000

“An historic” bothers me too. But it started long before the ’90s. I think I first noticed it around 1970. And it was probably something that was copied from British usage, where it may once have actually made sense.

By: Dr. Drew Moore

Dr. Drew Moore — Sat, 28 Nov 2015 21:01:07 +0000

I enjoyed your posts and replies about an anathema. Another one that really irks me is how people now say, ” an historic.” Some asshole news reader started this in the ’90s, in the US, as far as I can remember. In US English, we pronounce hard Hs. This misuse is so annoying. Enthused, dissed or disrespected, irregardless are some others.
Thanks and all the best.
Drew

By: John

John — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 05:00:09 +0000

Yes. Proper grammar.

By: John

John — Sat, 07 Feb 2015 04:59:05 +0000

Me too. Thank You. Another example of people misusing the language and changing it in the process.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 02 Sep 2014 08:00:27 +0000

C Le Verdic I’m not sure you understand the meaning of hypocrisy. Your comment might possibly make sense if Tommie said something like “anathema should never be used without an article.” I would still argue it’s not being hypocritical because he was merely referring to the word itself, but at least then I’d see your point. No, he simply pointed out that he wasn’t sure why it’s used without the article, without any judgment as to whether it was a good or bad thing to do.

Would you find “I have no idea why I love rice” to be hypocritical? It’s the same concept.

By: C Le Verdic

C Le Verdic — Sun, 22 Jun 2014 17:27:42 +0000

Well, Tommie, you’ve just used it (well, OK, 2 years ago) perfectly acceptably without an article. Consider it to be like hypocrisy. Does that need an article?

By: Ben

Ben — Mon, 04 Mar 2013 19:50:26 +0000

ugh! Thanks, Shelly. I can’t stand this word, despise its wrongful deployment as the only “adjective-noun” in the World…and you just know that people say: “It was anathema to him” because nobody had the patience for the “Anne Elk” effect of “an anathema.”

By: tommie miller

tommie miller — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 02:53:07 +0000

“Chomping at the bit” instead of “Champing at the bit” has always driven me crazy. And yes, I have no idea why anathema is used without the article.

By: Tara

Tara — Fri, 22 Jun 2012 14:57:04 +0000

I’ve heard many people mispronounce it as an “aneethma”, and I have even seen it written in newspapers as an “enethma”, so it is confusing. Of course, I saw a newspaper print that the President said he was going to be “pottering” around in his back yard instead of “puttering” around, so I guess anything goes nowadays.