o “We’re suppose [read 'supposed'] to feel her greatest humiliation in this scene.” Avis L. Weathersbee, “Judging TV’s Black Images,” Chicago Sun-Times, 8 Apr. 2001, Showcase §, at 1.

o “‘The Price of Milk’ is suppose [read 'supposed'] to be a surreal romantic comedy about two young lovers who encounter a series of strange encounters and situations.” Paul Stevens, “So Sour,” Buffalo News, 18 May 2001, at G6.

o “He was suppose [read 'supposed'] to be a lawyer, in fact was in his second year of law school at Florida State University, when he had an epiphany.” “Artistic Tribute to 4-Legged Victims,” Atlanta J.-Const., 26 May 2001, Features §, at C2.

In constructions in which “suppose” means “to assume,” an infinitive may follow the verb {I suppose this to be your answer}.

Language-Change Index — *"is suppose to" for "is supposed to": Stage 1.

*Invariably inferior forms.

——————–
Quotation of the Day: “To be fully useful, documents of more than 25,000 words require an index. . . . A poor index is frequently cited as the major weakness of books that critics otherwise like and admire.” Ernst Jacobi, Writing at Work: Dos, Don’ts, and How Tos 166 (1976).

“Suppositious” and “supposititious” sometimes cause confusion. Although some modern dictionaries list these as variants, some differentiation is both possible and desirable. “Suppositious” should be used to mean “hypothetical; theoretical; assumed.” E.g.: “House Speaker Thomas Foley . . . said: ‘I never answer questions like that. They are what are called suppositious questions.’” Michael Karnish, “Clinton Receives a High Court List,” Boston Globe, 16 Apr. 1994, at 1.

“Supposititious” should be confined to its usual sense, “illegitimate; spurious; counterfeit.” E.g.: “This supposititious mortal mind, not God, is the parent of all oppression and abuse, individual and collective.” “The Circle of Love,” Christian Science Monitor, 11 Sept. 1996, at 17.

Sometimes “suppositious” appears to be misused for its longer sibling — e.g.: “Lo finally has her baby by the side of a stream, with Elaine assisting. (The tidily achieved birth is the script’s one suppositious [read 'supposititious'] touch.)” Stanley Kauffman, “Manny and Lo,” New Republic, 12 Aug. 1996, at 26.

“Suppositional” = conjectural, hypothetical. It has much the same sense as “suppositious,” and is perhaps generally the clearer word. And it’s a little more common — e.g.: “Most of the play takes place in a tent, where Hale and Montresor argue their opposing world views, hopes and passions — a highly suppositional but dramatically irresistible approach, Ford admitted.” Paul Hodgins, “Short Memory an Asset for ‘Nathan Hale,’” Orange County Register, 3 Nov. 1995, at 29.

*”Suppositive” is a needless variant of “supposititious” and “suppositional.”

*Invariably inferior forms.

For information about the Language-Change Index click here.

——————–
Quotation of the Day: “A writer, if he is to be reasonably honest, must express sentiments repugnant to a good many people.” Richard Neuberger, “I Run for Office” (1947), in Think Before You Write 30, 33 (William G. Leary & James Steel Smith eds., 1951).

“Supplicant” is the standard term meaning “one who earnestly beseeches; a humble petitioner” — e.g.:

o “Upstairs in a darkened room of the Edina home in which he was staying, Sakya Trizin, supreme head of one of Tibetan Buddhism’s four branches, received a constant stream of supplicants.” Kay Miller, “Buddhism from Tibet Pursues Energy of West,” Star Trib. (Minneapolis), 8 July 1995, at A1.

o “The ugly fact is that each of these senators, and every other member of Congress, owes his or her job in some measure to the ability to squeeze money out of those who come before Congress as supplicants.” “‘Investigate Clinton, Not Us,’ Is the Cry of the GOP,” USA Today, 4 Mar. 1997, at A12.

o “Yeltsin has been cut out of some crucial discussions and sometimes treated as a needy supplicant.” Cragg Hines, “Yeltsin Signs NATO Accord, Agrees to Redirect Missiles,” Houston Chron., 28 May 1997, at 1.

*”Suppliant” is a needless variant because it occurs much less frequently and because it less closely matches the corresponding verb, ‘supplicate.’

*Invariably inferior forms.

For information about the Language-Change Index click here.

——————–
Quotation of the Day: “Speakers may be divided into three groups: the Assured, the Anxious and the Indifferent. It is the members of the second group, the Anxious, who are prone to commit the most grievous offences against elementary syntactic function in their excessive solicitude for correctness, whereas the Indifferent are more liable to indulge in condonable misdemeanors.” Simeon Potter, Modern Linguistics 165 (2d ed. 1967).

suspendable; *suspendible. The latter is a needless variant. Though *"suspendible" is the only form listed in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary, “suspendable” is eight times as common.

swab (= [1] a mop; or [2] a cotton wad or cloth used for cleaning) is the standard spelling. *"Swob" is a variant.

swale (= a depression in the land) is sometimes misspelled *"swail" — e.g.: “Mickelson . . . played it safe at 13 and banked his tee shot off the right fringe. ‘It caught the right swail [read "swale"] and caught the bottom of the cup,’ Mickelson said.” Melanie Hauser, “TPC Leaves Players Amazed at High Scores,” Houston Post, 25 Mar. 1995, at B5. Language-Change Index — “swale” misspelled *"swail": Stage 1.

swap (= to exchange) is the standard spelling. *"Swop" is a variant.

*Invariably inferior forms.

For information about the Language-Change Index click here.

——————–
Quotation of the Day: “No one cares whether you read fast or slow, well or ill, but as soon as you put pen to paper, somebody may be puzzled, angry, bored, or ecstatic; and if the occasion permits, your reader is almost sure to exclaim about the schools not doing their duty.” Jacques Barzun, How to Write and Be Read, Contexts for Composition 184 (1969).

Subpoena is a singular English noun — it was never a Latin noun. Rather, the English word subpoena derived from the Latin phrase sub poena, meaning “under penalty” or “under pain.” The Oxford English Dictionary dates subpoena from the late 15th century. And the plural subpoenas appears in English law as early as 1509 in the title of a statute “for Subpoenas and Privy Seals.” That’s the only plural until the early 19th century when *subpoenae first appeared — in a misquotation from Coke’s Institutes (Coke actually wrote sub poena).

So the false Latin plural *subpoenae is a hypercorrection and, in fact, not a Latin word at all. Two similar examples of hypercorrection are *octopi for octopuses and *ignorami for ignoramuses. (But the -ae does show up in the correct past-tense verb form subpoenaed, so that may add to the confusion.)

For the most part, though, people seem to get this right. A quick search on Google Books reveals over 2.4 million hits for subpoenas, but only about 11,000 for *subpoenae. Similar results are found in the Westlaw databases of JLR (148 instances for -ae; more than 10,000 for -as) and Allcases (1,025 instances for -ae; more than 10,000 for -as).

Although there is no penalty for writing or saying *subpoenae, other than the funny looks you’ll get, there ought to be a law. Then those who adopt the hypercorrect misusage would be under penalty.

*Invariably inferior form.

Sources:
Garner’s Dictionary of Legal Usage 856 (3d ed. 2011).
Garner’s Modern American Usage 782 (3d ed. 2009).
H.W. Fowler, A Dictionary of Modern English Usage 598 (Ernest Gowers ed., 2d ed. 1965).
Edward Coke, 4 Institutes of the Lawes of England 23 (1606).
John Hatsell, 1 Precedents of Proceedings in the House of Commons 6 (1818).
Oxford English Dictionary (updated online ed.), s.v. “subpoena,” accessed 10 May 2013, www.oed.com/view/Entry/192908?rskey=cF4Pyfresult=1&isAdvanced=false#eid.

“Never Use ‘between’ with More than Two Objects”: “When Miss Thistlebottom taught you in grammar school that ‘between’ applies only to two things and ‘among’ to more than two, she was for the most part correct. ‘Between’ essentially does apply to only two, but sometimes the ‘two’ relationship is present when more than two elements are involved. For example, it would be proper to say that ‘The President was trying to start negotiations between Israel, Egypt, Syria and Jordan’ if what was contemplated was not a round-table conference but separate talks involving Israel and each of the other three nations.” Theodore M. Bernstein, Dos, Don’ts & Maybes of English Usage 29 (1977). See GMAU, “between (A).”

“Never Use the First-Person Pronouns ‘I’ and ‘me’”: “If you want to write like a professional just about the first thing you have to do is get used to the first person singular. Just plunge in and write ‘I’ whenever ‘I’ seems to be the word that is called for. Never mind the superstitious notion that it’s immodest to do so. It just isn’t so.” Rudolf Flesch, A New Way to Better English 49 (1958). See GMAU, “First Person.”

“Never Use Contractions”: “Your style will obviously be warmer and truer to your personality if you use contractions like ‘I’ll’ and ‘won’t’ when they fit comfortably into what you’re writing. ‘I’ll be glad to see them if they don’t get mad’ is less stiff than ‘I will be glad to see them if they do not get mad.’ There’s no rule against such informality — trust your ear and your instincts.” William Zinsser, On Writing Well 117 (3d ed. 1985). See GMAU, “Contractions (A).”

“Never Use ‘you’ in Referring to Your Reader”: “Keep a running conversation with your reader. Use the second-person pronoun whenever you can. Translate everything into ‘you’ language. ‘This applies to citizens over 65′ = ‘if you’re over 65, this applies to you.’ ‘It must be remembered that’ = ‘you must remember.’ ‘Many people don’t realize’ = ‘perhaps you don’t realize.’ Always write directly to ‘you,’ the person you’re trying to reach with your written message. Don’t write in mental isolation; reach out to your reader.” Rudolf Flesch, How to Be Brief: An Index to Simple Writing 114 (1962).

For information about the Language-Change Index click here.

——————–
Quotation of the Day: “Most of us have learned many things about language from others, but generally the wrong things. More likely than not we have acquired ideas and beliefs that do not have facts to back them.” Ronald Wardhaugh, Proper English: Myths and Misunderstandings About Language viii (1999).

o “There is a groundless notion current both in the lower schools and in the world of affairs that ‘since’ has an exclusive reference to time and therefore cannot be used as a causal conjunction. . . . No warrant exists for avoiding this usage, which goes back, beyond Chaucer, to Anglo-Saxon.” Wilson Follett, Modern American Usage 305 (1966).

o “It is a delusion that ‘since’ may be used only as an adverb in a temporal sense (‘We have been here since ten o’clock’). It is also a causal conjunction meaning ‘for’ or ‘because’: ‘Since it is raining, we had better take an umbrella.’” Roy H. Copperud, American Usage and Style: The Consensus 349 (1980).

See GMAU, “as (A).”

Next: Four More.

For more information about the Language-Change Index click here.

——————–
Quotation of the Day: “One cannot help wondering whether those who teach such a monstrous doctrine ever read any English themselves.” Charles Allen Lloyd, We Who Speak English: And Our Ignorance of Our Mother Tongue 19 (1938).

So novel and absurd is this superstition that few authorities on writing have countered it in print. But here’s one: “This proscription ['Never begin a sentence with because'] appears in no handbook of usage I know of, but the belief seems to have a popular currency among many students.” Joseph M. Williams, Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace 168 (1981).

It appears to result from concern about fragments — e.g.: “Then the group broke for lunch. Because we were hungry.” Of course, the second “sentence” is merely a fragment, not a complete sentence. But problems of that kind simply cannot give rise to a general prohibition against starting a sentence with “because.” Good writers do so frequently — e.g.:

o “Because of the war the situation in hospitals is, of course, serious.” E.B. White, “A Weekend with the Angels,” in The Second Tree from the Corner 3, 6 (1954).

o “Because the relationship between remarks is often vague in this passage, we could not rewrite it with certainty without knowing the facts.” Donald Hall, Writing Well 104 (1973).

See GMAU, “because (E).”

Next: “Never Use ‘since’ to Mean ‘because.’”

For information about the Language-Change index click here.

——————–
Quotation of the Day: “‘The man I am talking about’ is infinitely better English than ‘The man about whom I am talking,’ as should be apparent to all familiar with good speech, listening to the two forms. Yet legions of our young folk will leave school having firmly implanted in their heads, and alas their use, that for reasons beyond their ken, the more elegant, dressy, scholar-like way of saying it is, ‘The man of whom I am talking’ — no matter how strongly their instincts, bless them, tell them it is unnatural and forced.” Richard Burton, Why Do You Talk Like That? 186-87 (1929).

o “A paragraph may contain but one sentence . . . [or] two sentences; but usually it contains more than two.” Adams S. Hill, The Foundations of Rhetoric 23-24 (1896).

o “To interpose a one-sentence paragraph at intervals — at longish intervals — is prudent. Such a device helps the eye and enables the reader (especially if ‘the going is heavy’) to regain his breath between one impressive or weighty or abstruse paragraph and the next.” Eric Partridge, Usage & Abusage 224-25 (1942).

o “Three situations in essay writing can occasion a one-sentence paragraph: (a) when you want to emphasize a crucial point that might otherwise be buried; (b) when you want to dramatize a transition from one stage in your argument to the next; and (c) when instinct tells you that your reader is tiring and would appreciate a mental rest.” John R. Trimble, Writing with Style 92-93 (2d ed. 2000).

Next: “Never Begin a Sentence with ‘Because.’”

For information about the Language-Change Index click here.

——————–
Quotation of the Day: “Students need to be taught the tools which professional writers have tested for decades, not the ones teachers have turned into painful dogma.” Gary Hoffman & Glynis Hoffman, Adios, Strunk and White 7 (1999).

ANSWER: Subpoenas duces tecum. This phrase — like any other containing a postpositive adjective — takes its plural on the noun at its beginning, the phrase’s “head.” Similar plurals include these:

accounts payable
accounts receivable
acts malum in se
agents provocateur
ambassadors extraordinary
annuities certain
attorneys general
bodies corporate
brothers-in-law (but my in-laws)
chattels personal
chattels real
cities proper
commanders-in-chief
conditions precedent
conditions subsequent
corporations de facto
corporations de jure
courts-martial
dates certain
easements appurtenant
fathers-in-law
fees simple
heirs apparent
letters patent
letters rogatory
letters testamentary
mayors pro tem
ministers plenipotentiary
mothers-in-law
notaries public
parties defendant
poets laureate
postmasters general
pounds sterling
presidents-elect
professors emeriti
rights-of-way
secretaries general
sisters-in-law
sums certain
surgeons general

Of course, some of these are antiquated: today, we tend to refer to defendants rather than parties defendant.

Meanwhile, over decades and centuries, the headword can shift. Even though we say sums certain, most literate writers would probably use sum totals, just as they would use totals as a plural noun when needed.

Fortunately, we have a limited number of postpositive adjectives in English. No matter how many sticklers for grammar might inhabit a single law office, these pluralizing points seem unlikely to foment battles royal.

By the way, a story in The Onion (9-20-2000) placed the late language maven William Safire in a Manhattan Burger King ordering “two Whoppers Junior.” In an online discussion transcribed and published in The Washington Post (4-23-2008), Safire acknowledged ordering “Whoppers Junior” — but only “because it gets a funny look or a laugh.”

Sources:
Garner’s Dictionary of Legal Usage 685, 692, 856 (3d ed. 2011).
Garner’s Modern American Usage 638, 648 (3d ed. 2009).

Thanks to Cecelia Soboleski and Michael Starkman for suggesting this topic.