Straight From the Horse's Mouth
Q: Is it "champing at the bit" or "chomping at the bit"? I'm champing/chomping at the bit to know! -- Leigh, via email
A: Whoa! Easy there, Seabiscuit. Hold your horses!
Now that you've been reined in and are resting easy in the harness, I'll remind you that many terms in English are derived from horseback riding. Don't worry; I'm saddling up to answer your question.
Actually, the answer is a cinch. That's because "champ" and "chomp" have slightly different meanings.
"Champ" describes the process of biting or gnawing on an object that's not intended to be eaten, such as a pencil or a pipe stem or, if you're an anxious horse waiting for a race to start, a metal bit in your mouth.
"Chomp" refers to taking a bite out of something to eat it or to savor its flavor or juices. Thus, the king at the medieval feast chomps on a chicken leg, your uncle chomps on his cigar and a teenager chomps on chewing gum.
A Google Ngram chart reveals that, in American English, "champing at the bit" overtook "chomping at the bit" in frequency of use during the 1990s.
(I'm imagining a racetrack announcer reporting the homestretch of that race: "It's 'Chomping at the Bit' in the lead! But here comes 'Champing at the Bit' surging on the inside to nose him out!")
The distinction between "champ" and "chomp" is subtle, but it's still worth preserving. Use "champing at the bit" and you'll always be a champ.
Q: Did I miss a memo? When I was in school, we were taught to use the pronoun "who" to refer to people. Now everybody uses "that," e.g., "She's the woman that brought the pie." Is "that" correct? -- Lewis Freeman, Minneapolis
A: No, no, and no! And did I mention NO?
Many usage authorities will tell you it's perfectly fine to use "that" to describe a person. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage, for instance, cites innumerable instances of such use ranging from the Bible ("Our Father that art in heaven" -- Matthew 6:9) to the Bard (Hamlet: "I'll make a ghost of him that lets me.")
With apologies to both Our Father and Hamlet, ignore them. Using "that" instead of "who" or "whom" dehumanizes people by treating them like things.
It can also lead to ambiguity. Consider this sentence: "He delivered a tribute to the captain that inspired the crew." Was the crew inspired by the captain or inspired by the tribute to him?
Using "who" instead of "that" makes it clear: "He delivered a tribute to the captain WHO inspired the crew."
========
Rob Kyff, a teacher and writer in West Hartford, Connecticut, invites your language sightings. His book, "Mark My Words," is available for $9.99 on Amazon.com. Send your reports of misuse and abuse, as well as examples of good writing, via email to WordGuy@aol.com or by regular mail to Rob Kyff, Creators Syndicate, 737 3rd Street, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254. COPYRIGHT 2025 CREATORS.COM
Copyright 2025 Creators Syndicate Inc.
Comments