Fore-what?, Fore-who?
This will be short and random, but here goes: Every time I use the word "forego" -- i.e., to abstain from, for you non-dictionary types -- I always seem to end up using it in some story I'm telling in the past tense. Then I freak out. Is it forwent? That doesn't sound right. Foregoed? Nope, even worse. So finally, I looked it up today. Turns out it is "forwent" -- note the lack of the "e", although the present tense can go with or without the "e" like judg(e)ment does. So while I still feel a little foolish saying "forwent" at least I know it's right now.
Why do I have the feeling that this entry will cause some to forego reading this blog in the future?
posted by Evan @ 3:27 PM
1 comments
1 Comments:
The only thing worse than that is the construction of word, and ultimately phrase, that some journalists think sounds smart: undergo. Its other forms include the hard-to-manage undergoing and, even better, underwent. As in: Bob Sanders underwent surgery on his left leg, but before he had to undergo treatment for a sore colon. How about changing that word to have or had? Sounds the same, means the same, less confusing.
It's silly how some like to use big words when a miniscule one will do.
--wk
Post a Comment
<< Home