Which is correct?
Because online security is still far from perfect, there are _____ things to consider before launching into Cyber Monday shopping.
a. few
b. a few

Answer: b.

Explanation:
Although the difference between few and a few is subtle, mixing them up can totally change the meaning of your sentence.

A few translates to some: There are some things to consider before you start shopping online, because security is important. There may not be a large number of things to consider but the emphasis is on the fact that there are issues that you really should address before you start typing in your credit card number with merry abandon.

Few, used separately, translates to not many or an insignificant number. That wouldn’t make sense, in the context of security concerns about online shopping because it puts the emphasis on the small number of things to consider.

Lynn Gaertner-Johnson explains more about the difference between few and a few.

There’s a similar difference between little and a little.

Follow me on Twitter @tao_of_grammar

a. The software is likely to be standardized.
b. The software is not likely to be standardized.

Answer: a.

Explanation:

Let’s break it down: What is unlikely? That the software will never be standardized. Therefore, the software is likely to be standardized.

Ben Zimmer (@bgzimmer) wrote about overnegation on his Language Log post, Don’t be discouraged from not voting. He provides these examples:

 This particular misnegation crops up here and there online:

This is one way to intimidate and discourage people from not voting. (link)

Perhaps requiring a legitimate ID in order to vote may discourage many from not voting. (link)

so each of these counties, as well as counties in other crucial swing states is to frighten those undecideds with xenophobic, jingoistic race baiting or discourage those undecideds from not voting. (link)

He said such a campaign was intended to create fears and panic among aliens, aimed to discourage people from not voting for the NPP. (link)

****

This post was inspired by a misinterpretation of a similar sentence, in a post about software defined networking (SDN). From the Nerd Twilight blog:

Recently, Greg Ferro, of EtherealMind renown, provided an instructive overview on SDN APIs, opining that it is “unlikely that Northbound APIs will never standardise but I’m not aware of any initiatives in this area.”

I don’t know whether northbound APIs, as Greg suggests, will never standardize, but I do know that most knowledgeable observers (including the aforementioned parties) believe that there should no headlong rush toward standardization.

The writer missed the double negation and took the meaning of “unlikely never to standardize” to mean “unlikely to standardize.” Ferro’s intended meaning was likely that he thinks it likely that northbound APIs will eventually standardize, although he doesn’t know of any current efforts toward that standardization.

***

Follow me on Twitter @tao_of_grammar

The quickly growing list of C-level titles includes CEO, CFO, CIO, CSO, etc.

Explanation:

Etc. (short for et cetera) means and so forth or and other things. By saying that C-level titles include CEO, CFO, CIO, CSO, we’re saying that the list is incomplete, so etc. is redundant.

Wikipedia has an entry about et cetera.

Want to discuss people who pronounce it eck-cetera? Don’t get me started. Ditto ex-presso. (Did you know ditto comes from Latin too?)

Want some more Latin fun? See our quiz for Latin lovers or our Latin phrases cheat sheet.

Follow us on Twitter @tao_of_grammar