12.30.2011

A wrongly presented common error

As I go through my list of available common errors for the daily entry to the calendar, I come across some that have been removed from or significantly revised on the Common Errors in English Usage Web site. When this happens, I am often alerted by readers who point out something amiss in the entry. Here was the entry from December 29, 2011:

wrongly/wrong

“Wrongly” always precedes the verb it modifies: “He was wrongly suspected of having
used garlic powder in the lasagna.” “Wrong” is the word you want after the verb:
“She answered wrong.”
To which two readers responded with essentially the same (valid) point:

This is interesting.  I would say "She answered incorrectly."  I would not say "She
answered incorrect."  How is wrongly/wrong different?

I would also say "She was incorrect" not "She was incorrectly."  As I would say "She
was wrong."
and:

"She answered wrong" seems wrong to me.

Her answer was wrong (adjective modifying a noun).  She answered wrongly (adverb
modifying a verb, regardless of pre or post position relative to verb).  Similarly: 
"She answered incorrectly" and not "She answered incorrect."
I looked back at the Common Errors site and discovered that this was a case where the entry had been removed, though I still had it listed among the entries I use to create the daily entries. The point is not that the entry is wrong, but the entry is not fully fleshed out. If you have been saying "She answered wrongly," you are not grammatically incorrect, but the word "wrong" also does something that the word "incorrect" does not: it serves as an adverb as well as an adjective.

I still like the guideline of the entry: "wrongly" goes before the verb it modifies. But that is a guideline, not a comprehensive usage rule. It is perfectly correct (and necessary) to say, for example, "She was accused wrongly," if you are using that sort of inverted construction.

If you thought you observed something wrong about this entry, you were right!

My apologies for any confusion.

No comments: