Good versus Well
In both casual speech and formal writing, we frequently have to choose between the adjective good and the adverb well. With most verbs, there is no contest: when modifying a verb, use the adverb.
He swims well.
He knows only too well who the murderer is.
However, when using a linking verb or a verb that has to do with the five human senses, you want to use the adjective instead.
How are you? I'm feeling good, thank you.
After a bath, the baby smells so good.
Even after my careful paint job, this room doesn't look good.
Many careful writers, however, will use well after linking verbs relating to health, and this is perfectly all right. In fact, to say that you are good or that you feel good usually implies not only that you're OK physically but also that your spirits are high.
"How are you?"
"I am well, thank you."
Bad versus Badly
When your cat died (assuming you loved your cat), did you feel bad or badly? Applying the same rule that applies to good versus well, use the adjective form after verbs that have to do with human feelings. You felt bad. If you said you felt badly, it would mean that something was wrong with your faculties for feeling.
bring versus take
Generally, take means to move something from a place close at hand to a place relatively further away; bring means to move something to a position closer at hand. This distinction is not always so clear, however, and often it doesn't matter which verb we use, simply because the distinction noted above is either unclear or unimportant. For instance, in the sentence, "We are going to visit our grandparents, and we are going to bring/take our cousins with us," we could use either verb.
compare to versus compare with
In formal usage, "compare to" is the only acceptable form when "compare" means representing as similar or likening, according to 71 per cent of the Usage Panel: "compare a voice to thunder." In such comparisons the similarities are often metaphorical rather than real; the things compared are of fundamentally unlike orders, and a general likeness is intended rather than a detailed accounting. "Compare with" is the only acceptable form in the sense of examining in order to note similarities or differences, according to 70 per cent of the Panel: "compare Sheldon's poetry with Wordsworth's." Here the things compared are of like kinds, and specific resemblances and differences are examined in detail. Informally, "to" and "with" are often used interchangeably in the foregoing examples. In formal usage, only "compare with" is acceptable when "compare" intransitively means being worthy of comparison, according to 94 per cent of the Panel: "Promises do not compare with deeds." In such constructions, "compare to" is infrequent, even in informal usage.
different from versus different than
In British English, you'd want to avoid "different than" like the plague; in American English, it is not so loathed. The Oxford Guide to English Usage notes that "different than" is useful in constructions such as "I was a different man in 1935 than I was in 1916" or "The American theatre is suffering from a different malaise than ours." In the example you give, I'd use "from."
do versus make
The distinction between these two verbs is difficult for ESL students because many of their languages have only one verb to express the meaning. In English, the idiomatic expressions need to be memorized by foreign students who haven't acquired the language naturally. There is no clear rule or mnemonic device to help students remember.
To make:
Make a bed
Make a mistake
Make dinner
Make an appointment
Make a deal
Make a left, right (to turn a vehicle)
Make an announcement
To do:
do one's homework
do a good job
do the dishes, laundry, vacuuming, etc
do one's hair (get a hairdo, cut, style, etc.)
due to versus because
Some grammarians would prefer that we never use "due to" at all, but the phrase has some useful and acceptable applications, as Burchfield points out:
- (payable to) "Pay Caesar what is due to Caesar."
- (likely to) "It's due to rain this afternoon."
- (properly owed to) "Much of what we own is due to my wife's investment decisions."
- (following "to be") "His obesity is due to his daily diet of butterscotch sundaes."
Burchfield then points out that when "due to" is used to create a prepositional phrase in a verbless clause, many grammarians will object.
"Due mainly to the engineers' incompetence, the roof began to sag dangerously."
"Due to the efforts of the English faculty, students' scores writing have begun to rise."
Burchfield concludes that this use of due to seems to be forming "part of the natural language of the twenty-first century."
The phrase "due to the fact that" can often be replaced, to good effect, with "because."
if versus whether
Bernstein says that "whether" is the word we normally use to introduce a noun clause, as in "They asked whether we should attend the dinner." And then he goes on to say that if is well established to serve a similar function, and it does so in a perfectly acceptable manner (i.e., you could substitute if for whether in our dinner sentence). However, when a noun clause begins a sentence, it's a good idea to use whether, not if, because the if can throw off the reader, suggesting that a condition is being implied when that is not the case: "If [should be whether] the Pilgrims were truly Puritans was the object of his inquiry."
into versus in to
Whenever the "to" is a particle of the infinitve, be sure to keep them separate: "We dropped in to visit my Aunt," "He just stepped in to pay the bill." We use "into" to express motion or direction: "He stared into her blue eyes," "She walked into the store to say hello," "She drove into the side of the garage." In a sentence such as "Let's invite them in to dinner," of course, you wouldn't want people walking into your dinner. I hope that helps.
people versus persons
Generally, "people" is the plural of "person." "Peoples" can refer to a group or groups of culturally defined groups, as in the "peoples of eastern Europe." The choice between "people" and "persons" is not always easy, though. There used to be a rule that persons is used when speaking of a number of people who can be counted and people is used when speaking of a large or uncounted number of individuals.
There are fifteen persons on this committee but three hundred million people in the United States.
We can put twelve persons in each lifeboat.
How many people visit this mall every year?
According to Burchfield, however, the plural form persons is slowly retreating, and people is now widely used in whatever circumstance we need the plural of person.
less versus fewer
When making a comparison between quantities we often have to make a choice between the words fewer and less. Generally, when we're talking about countable things, we use the word fewer; when we're talking about measurable quantities that we cannot count, we use the word less. "She had fewer chores, but she also had less energy." The managers at our local Stop & Shop seem to have mastered this: they've changed the signs at the so-called express lanes from "Twelve Items or Less" to "Twelve Items or Fewer." Whether that's an actual improvement, we'll leave up to you.
We do, however, definitely use less when referring to statistical or numerical expressions:
It's less than twenty miles to Dallas.
He's less than six feet tall.
Your essay should be a thousand words or less.
We spent less than forty dollars on our trip.
The town spent less than four percent of its budget on snow removal.
In these situations, it's possible to regard the quantities as sums of countable measures.
that versus which
The word which can be used to introduce both restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses, although many writers use it exclusively to introduce nonrestrictive clauses; the word that can be used to introduce only restrictive clauses. Think of the difference between
"The garage that my uncle built is falling down."
and
"The garage, which my uncle built, is falling down."
I can say the first sentence anywhere and the listener will know exactly which garage I'm talking about — the one my uncle built. The second sentence, however, I would have to utter, say, in my back yard, while I'm pointing to the dilapidated garage. In other words, the "that clause" has introduced information that you need or you wouldn't know what garage I'm talking about (so you don't need/can't have commas); the "which clause" has introduced nonessential, "added" information (so you do need the commas).
We recommend Michael Quinion's article on the usage of which and that in his World Wide Words.
Incidentally, some writers insist that the word that cannot be used to refer to people, but in situations where the people are not specifically named, it is acceptable.
The students that study most usually do the best.
regards
faryal shah