Grammar Moses: If you're inflammable, should you be afraid of that match?

Reader Dave Fellman clipped a story from our Business section that read: "But President Dennis Williams said Monday he'll pick between Ford, General Motors and Fiat Chrysler before the contracts end on Sept. 14."

You might think Dave was concerned about leading the sentence with a conjunction, as many of you have expressed to me. But no!

"I always thought that one used between when only two items, but among for more than two, although grammarbank.com suggests that the following is OK. Care to discuss in your column?"

I'll try, Dave.

Those devoted to their childhood grammar texts will choose to follow the dictum Dave offers, but in a simple list of things I suggest (and the Oxford English Dictionary will back me up on this) either word works just fine.

The OED says the only real distinction is that between should be used when describing one-to-one relationships between many things, while among describes undefined relationships between things.

So, you'd use between to describe how Art, Brandon, Lance and Joe would divide the bar tab.

Use among if the people or things can be regarded as a group or undifferentiated mass) rather than individually.

For instance, if you're dating you might find just one perfect guy from among all of the Toms, Dicks or Harrys in the world, where Toms, Dicks and Harrys represent not individuals but an undifferentiated mass of dudes.

Confusing words

• Flammable means combustible. Nonflammable means noncombustible. Hundreds of years ago, inflammable meant combustible, and its clumsy, fireproof partner was noninflammable.

But because the prefix in- could be confused for a negative (consider that insolvent means not solvent), it has fallen out of favor. If your grandchild's pajamas had a label that said "inflammable," you might be concerned. If not, maybe you should be.

Either way, tell your grandchild not to smoke in bed, and go with flammable.

• Disbelief suggests incredulity; misbelief is a false belief.

• You lend (verb) money, but you make or accept a loan (noun).

• The word is remuneration, not renumeration.

Speed round

I have a habit of scratching down things I hear during the day that make me wince in the same way a national anthem singer does when he reaches beyond his range or a pianist does when striking the wrong key.

That's probably why I write this column.

Many things require substantial explanation. The following redundancies don't:

• Each and every: Pick one or the other that best fits the occasion.

• Chicagoland area: The creation of Chicagoland is commonly attributed to Col. Robert McCormick, the longtime editor and publisher of the Tribune, to describe the Chicago metropolitan area. So, no need to refer to this as the Chicagoland area.

Outside of this column or a direct quote, you shouldn't find that word in this newspaper.

• Merge together: You can't very well merge anything apart, can you?

• Repeat the same: How about repeat?

Correction

In last week's column, I led with a bit about repetition and redundancy.

I hope you learned something from it. I know I did. And Mount Prospect Mayor Arlene Juracek was the one doing the teaching.

"I noticed a pet peeve of mine that may or may not be correct in the opening paragraph of today's column," she wrote. "Is it 'one in the same,' as you use it, or 'one and the same,' which makes more sense to me?"

Arthur Golub of Streamwood expressed the same sentiment.

Thanks for the notes. You got me.

The idiom is "one and the same," which is more logical. Write carefully!

• Jim Baumann is assistant vice president/managing editor of the Daily Herald. Write him at jbaumann@dailyherald.com. Put Grammar Moses in the subject line. You also can friend or follow Jim at facebook.com/baumannjim.