Word Watch
10-6-05 "Adverse" and "Averse"
Robert Bianco stumbled over the distinction between “adverse” and “averse” in his review of the WB show, “Related” (“You'll probably want to send `Related' packing;” USA Today; October 5, 2005; p. 3D):
“But seldom have any four women been more adverse to silence - or sense - than the Sorelli sisters.”
“Adverse” is defined as “1. unfavorable or antagonistic 2. opposing one's interests or wishes,” whereas “averse” is defined as “having a strong feeling of opposition, antipathy, or repugnance; opposed” (Random House Webster's College Dictionary).
Mr. Bianco is not the first writer to be tripped up by these seemingly similar terms. Our tip for keeping things straight is to recast the sentence using a derivative of the term and see if the meaning is valid. For example:
“The Sorelli sisters have an aversion to silence.”
“Silence was an adversary for the Sorelli sisters.”
The first sentence makes sense; the second does not. Clearly, “averse” is the better fit here.
Another technique is to substitute a synonym and see the sentence is sensible:
“But seldom have any four women been more opposed to silence.”
“But seldom have any four women been more antagonistic to silence.”
The synonym for “averse” (“opposed”) works, while the synonym for “adverse” (“antagonistic”) does not.
(Yes, the sentences should end in ellipses. But many browsers stumble over them, substituting question marks or other punctuation instead. So we don't include them on our Web pages. Browsers can be confounded by apostrophes, too, although the problem is less widespread and so we continue to use them. For similar reasons our em dashes are often converted to hyphens. It drives us silly, and when we take over the world we'll implement the necessary changes. For now, we're trying to learn to live with the sloppiness.)
We're fans of Mr. Bianco. We find him to be a talented and careful writer. In fact, we've used his writing to illustrate good technique in an earlier installment of Word Watch. We're loath to assume that he made this mistake, and we would rather pin the sin on some hapless, fresh-out-of-college copy editor. If indeed Mr. Bianco is responsible for the error, then shame on the copy editor who did not make the correction. In any event, we cannot bring ourselves to fault someone whose writing we admire and enjoy so much. Surely there's a scapegoat lurking somewhere in the halls of USA Today.
Addendum, October 2005. We received a gracious e-mail from Mr. Bianco. As for culpability in this incident he said, "I'm afraid the fault was all my own. I'm placing the blame on deadline pressure, because I really do know the difference between 'adverse' and 'averse.'" We at BRMT adhere to the advice of "'fess up when you mess up," but find that a too-rare quality in others. Mr. Bianco's candid admission is refreshing, and it gives us one more reason to admire him.
“Lightweight” vs. “light weight”
This one pops up all the time. Most recently we saw it in an otherwise reputable trade publication, Compact Equipment (“The Retriever;” September 2005; p. 54) in a review of a trailer used for transporting construction equipment:
“The Retriever's best features are its lightweight and low deck height.”
“Lightweight” is an adjective. It must be used to describe something. Here the reader is left wondering, “The Retriever's lightweight what?”
What the writer should have written is:
“The Retriever's best features are its light weight and low deck height.”
Now the adjective “light” describes the weight of the trailer, as “low” describes the trailer's deck height. Other possibilities include:
“The Retriever is a lightweight trailer with a low deck height.”
“The lightweight Retriever has a low deck height.”
The tip here is to see what noun is modified by the term, “lightweight.” If there is none, then “lightweight” is wrong and “light weight” should be used instead.