I Am Somewhat Disturbed by the Use of “Somewhat Of”

Get your news from a source that’s not owned and controlled by oligarchs. Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily.

UPDATE: It turns out that in this case I’m the one who’s Just. Plain. Wrong. More details here.

I usually wait for weekends to air my language peeves, but here’s one that cropped up today. It’s from a car review in the LA Times that mentions a couple of safety-related changes that have been made to the 2013 Mercedes-Benz SL550:

The car now sports a blunt, upright front bumper and grille….The hood itself also sits higher because more space is now mandated between it and the engine underneath. This provides somewhat of a cushioned landing for the unfortunate soul you’re relocating from the crosswalk.

Wrong! It should be “something of a cushioned landing.” Or should it? This is the dilemma of the hardcore descriptivist, which I mostly am. At what point does a formerly incorrect usage become so widespread that it’s time to accept it? As I often do, I turn to the Google Ngram viewer for guidance:

As you can see, use of somewhat of has doubled since the mid-90s. It’s catching on! However, it’s still only a tenth of something of. In a simple Google search of both phrases, something of is about four times more common than somewhat of.

So I’m willing to say that, for now at least, this usage remains Just. Plain. Wrong. Ten lashes to the Times copy desk. Anybody want to take the other side?

Owned by no one—except you.

We just keep seeing it happen: Newsrooms owned by billionaires and corporations are spinning their own narratives, overwriting the truth, following only stories that keep them in the pocket of those with even more power.

Not here. We’re not owned by anyone. We’re not part of any cult that demands our allegiance to a bottom line. We’ve spoken up and spoken out while other newsrooms changed their stories—or cut them altogether—to keep the C suite happy.

Our mission is to find the truth and amplify it. That’s why we’re independent, nonprofit, and, crucially, funded by readers. The investigations on our website will always be free to read, watch, and listen to, but our newsroom is powered by readers who pitch in what they can so we can keep asking the hard questions.

Can you chip in today?

Owned by no one—except you.

We just keep seeing it happen: Newsrooms owned by billionaires and corporations are spinning their own narratives, overwriting the truth, following only stories that keep them in the pocket of those with even more power.

Not here. We’re not owned by anyone. We’re not part of any cult that demands our allegiance to a bottom line. We’ve spoken up and spoken out while other newsrooms changed their stories—or cut them altogether—to keep the C suite happy.

Our mission is to find the truth and amplify it. That’s why we’re independent, nonprofit, and, crucially, funded by readers. The investigations on our website will always be free to read, watch, and listen to, but our newsroom is powered by readers who pitch in what they can so we can keep asking the hard questions.

Can you chip in today?

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

INDEPENDENT. BECAUSE OF YOU.

Mother Jones has no billionaires calling the shots—just readers like you making fearless reporting possible

Donate