Just because an error is common, doesn’t stop it being wrong. This is true of common mispronunciations such as ate (rhymes with met not mate, unless you’re American), privacy (doesn’t start like private but privet, again, unless you’re American), comparable (it’s not com-parable, it’s ‘comprable’), adversary (doesn’t sound like adversity) and so on. This is probably obvious to most readers.
What I want to complain about here is the increasing (it seems to me) use of ‘advocate for’ when what is meant is ‘advocate’.
I’ve tried to ignore it but the misuse seems to be growing.
I even found it in the Telegraph this morning, in an article by a member of the House of Lords, no less.
It’s easy to see how it’s happened. To advocate something means to recommend it publicly. Similar concepts are ‘speak for’ and ‘push for’ so we can see how the ‘for’ might have crept in.
Some people also sometimes say ‘advocate against’, which is an oxymoron, but if you think it’s valid you may think you need to be clear when one is in favour.
A person, such as a lawyer, can be an advocate for someone, meaning he represents him. So this is another possible origin of the error.
But it remains an error.
‘Advocate’ as a verb should never be followed by ‘for’. It’d be like a health officer saying “I recommend for brushing your teeth twice a day”. It’s plain wrong.
The Collins dictionary gives examples of correct usage for the verb:
Mr. Williams is a conservative who advocates fewer Government controls on business
…the tax policy advocated by the Opposition.
For the noun, an advocate is always an advocate of a cause, not an advocate for it. Collins again:
He was a strong advocate of free market policies and a multi-party system.
As noted above, it is valid to say that someone who represents a person a group is an advocate for them, in the sense of acting on their behalf. But that’s the only time ‘for’ should appear with ‘advocate’.
I’d like to be able to tie this to some general decline in standards attributable to wokery or such like. And maybe there is some connection to a decline in proper education and journalistic standards. But it may also just be one of those things, an error that has become so common even writers and editors who should know better start to forget it’s an error.
So this is my little protest, which I trust everyone will now read and, having done so, resolve never to do it again.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Hate as a noun instead of hatred.
Unique instead of unusual.
Envision instead of envisage.
Conspiracy instead of conspiracy theory.
My personal dislike is when almost everyone adds “super” into sentences. Right now its windy outside, its not super windy, just windy.
The latest awful new jargon term I’ve heard was turning the verb “ask” into a noun meaning “request”. “We have three asks…”
And the most common mistake is “an history lesson” or “an historic moment”, when it should be “a”. The mistake, like saying “haitch”, comes from confusion over the silent “h”. If the beginning “h” is silent, which it rarely is in English, use “an” to make a smooth transition. For example,
In many British accents (most notably but not confined to Cockney), the “h” is dropped in all of the above examples, an the the leading “a” becomes “an”. Eg. “An ‘opeless situation” or “an ‘appy ‘oliday”!
Will Jones’ interesting article brings to mind a little-known fact: that many older meanings and pronunciations of English words now lost in England are still preserved in their former colonies such as in North America, just as older pronunciations of Spanish words now lost in Spain are still preserved in their colonies such as in South America.
The “eight” pronunciation of “ate”, as with the other words he derides as “American”, comes from the English pronunciation rule that if a word has a vowel, then a consonant, then another vowel, the first vowel sound is always “long”.
“Sidewalk” is also derided as “American”, but was originally used in England in the days of park promenades, where people strolled along broad “main walks” and narrower “side walks” for more pr-“eye”-va-see.
The Spanish word “linda” (pretty) is derided in Spain as “South American”, but it can be found in works such as “Don Quixote” by Cervantes, widely regarded as the greatest writer in the Spanish language.
Similarly, there must be old English words preserved in Australia, Canada & New Zealand that have long been forgotten in their ancestral homeland.
I can’t stand “bored of” for “bored by”.
Going/have gone/went extinct instead of becoming/have become/became extinct. Likewise, you don’t go ill, you become ill.
And you don’t “fall pregnant”, either.
I am driven mad on a daily basis by poor grammar. The Telegraph is quite dreadful and even the Spectator journalists are dropping the odd clanger. To be fair, once it has been pointed out, the editors often correct it.
I have still not recovered from seeing an ad in the Spectator a number of years ago for, wait for it: St. Valentines’s Day. Ok it, was an ad, so not the responsibility of the editors, but shouldn’t someone have picked this up?
“Audit lead” in my old general practice: “For this audit, of course we will need to have a criteria.”
Me: “You mean ‘criterion.’ It’s a Greek word, and ‘criteria’ is the plural.
Audit lead: “Oh, OK. Well, in this case we two possible criterions…”
My pet hate is the use of likely (an adjective) in place of probably (an adverb).
I checked that one out the other day as Dot Wordsworth raised this subject. It is not actually incorrect, even if it does grate. Or even great, as many might say!
I’ve come to expect so little of journalists that I cease to be shocked by their poor use of English. I am much more shocked by their even more obvious lack of intelligence!
Quite frankly I’m bored “of” their general ignorance which is sadly becoming the norm. It appears to be highly infectious and there’s no safe and effective remedy.
PS my error above was deliberate just in case it’s raising your hackles!
Lived experience
I’ve noticed on a couple of different podcasts Toby Young (of all people!!) saying nucular instead of nuclear. Goerge W. Bush used to do the same.
It was, literally, in a Physics lecture that we were told that the details of nuClear Physics were unClear. 🙂
I found them to be more complicated than unclear, though appreciated the only joke available.
How do we stamp out the misuse of ‘literally’ amongst young people in this country? Maybe some kind of grammar gulag re-education camp?
And “like” every other, like word.
There is, “he/she went, no!’ All the lovely words in our language and they don’t know them. Furriners speak better English.
I hate Frank Spencer (I can’t remember the sods real name) and everyone,’ herASSing’ him. Makes my blood boil.
“Premier League footballer scores solo goal during Beta Squad charity match with viewers left divided over their identity”
Alexander Boot’s recent rant about the ugly and confusing ‘singular they/their’ … http://www.alexanderboot.com/football-makes-you-go-trans/
And I say this as someone who as much as the next man is annoyed when the BBC put on youth programming with the clear desperation to demonstrate how “down with the street” they are by employing teen slang and patois.
An invite. Even supposedly edumacated writers are using this one.
Speak to myself? Only I can do that, you speak to me. Can I get a coffee?
😀 😀 😀
And “disconnect” instead of “disconnection”.
Off of. Slither instead of sliver. Could of, etc.. Chewna. Aaaargh!
Oh yes.
The two that put my teeth on edge.
Dreadful, Dreadful, Dreadful.
I hear ‘my bad’ came from across the pond.
The misuse of reflexive pronouns, think Joan Armatrading, me myself I. The worst culprits are telephone sales people saying things like “is that ok with yourself?”
I had to call the surgery today to arrange a check up. This is how it went…
Hello. I’ve received a text asking me to call to arrange a check up. My date of birth is 01/01/01.
“Oh hello hux. You want an appointment?
Yes
“Do you want Shingles?”
No. I definitely don’t want Shingles. It’s not top of my wish list.
“Oh.”
Are you asking me about an injection?
“Yes. Do you want the Shingles vaccine?”
Absolutely no way do I want an injection.
“OK. I’ll make a note of that.”
After which I got the young lady back on track.
Anyway the good news is I have got an appointment in six weeks time. 🙃
Such progress. Watch any old comedy from 90s to early 00s and people see the Doctor the same day, or get a home visit.
Read this just as I was tucking into my scone (rhymes with pull the other one, not overblown). Will, you’ve let me down with this load of sh*te.
I’m worried about flammable objects, or is it inflammable objects? Either way in a relative’s apartment block one of these options is not allowed on the stairs!!
Thank you, Will. I will advocate this in future
My other hate is ‘bored of’. It’s bored with!
Saying ‘disinterested’ to mean ‘uninterested’. It’s a shame because ‘disinterested’ is a useful word; more precise than ‘unbiased’.
There is also a shortage of it in the Political Bubble.
Ooh, Will. You hit a nerve with this cantankerous bunch of lovely pedants. We feel your pain. We each have our bugbears.
Using the logical fallacy “begs the question” thinking it sounds fancier than “raises the question”.
My pet hates du jour is “return
backto” and bought used as the past tense of bring (or should that be bing, for which I would blame Microsoft and their irritating search engine.“return back”
I was just coming to that – aaagh!
Brought is pp of bring
Bought is pp of buy.
Will, damn you! You knew precisely how to create a dispute between previously pleasant commenters.
I think Gaza did that.
You could have return right back, to the very beginning, though, for emphasis.
Here’s another common, often overlooked one: The confusion of where to use the words “which” and “that”. For example, “The thing which annoys me most about my job is…” should be correctly: “The thing THAT annoys me most about my job is…”.
“Which” either occurs at the beginning of a question, i.e. “Which of these would you like?”, or following a comma as the beginning a clause embedded in a sentence, i.e. “The teaching of basic literacy in schools, WHICH is the bedrock of modern civilization, has been undertaken for centuries”.
You could call it the wicked “which” of the West!
I will quote Ernest Gowers (The Complete Plain Words): “There are still some people who try to insist that to use which or who in a defining clause is wrong, and that every such clause must have that. There is no justification for this, and there never has been”.
Look at Strunk and White’s example when advocating your view: “The lawn mower, which is broken, is in the garage”. It’s as cack-handed as “the pen of my aunt”. Strunk and White’s Elements of Style is regarded as an authority by the USA, and recommends “which-hunting”. Ha ha. They are largely to blame.
Benjamin Franklin, in 1789:
Nice one Ian.👍
“It comprises of -”
“Nope. Stop there. It comprises.”
“Weather dependant”
Someone who is dependent upon the weather.
Weatherly proud. League Of Gentlemen.
Everything is “iconic” these days.