(A proofreader's note regarding “reference” and “referral”)

“Referral” and “reference” both come from “refer”

And are similar words at the core,

“To carry back” being the thrust of “refer”

In its Latinate roots long before.

Reflecting words “ferry” and “back” put together,

“Refer” stood for carrying a question,

A matter, or other to higher authority,

Prompting them for a decision.

The main sense of “reference” in modern day use

Is the “act of referring/consulting.”

This process involving a standard that's separate

Has several due parts in its running.

These all, then, are aspects that find themselves labeled 

By “reference” the noun in its glory,

With person attesting, the statement, and standard

Among the concerns handled fairly.

Evolution of usage brought forth an abstraction

Since mental carry-back could be meant.

When “mentioning,” “allusion” are close to the meaning,

Connecting ideas is the bent.

“Referral,” by contrast, is starkly more simple,

More tangible also in process:

“The action of sending a case or a person

Off elsewhere” to finish approaches.

“Referral” is always an active endeavor, 

And mostly the context is medical.

A person directed may take on this label,

Not “reference” in any sense practical.

“In shameless self-reference, she cited referrals

That others might claim they obtained.

She ended her speech with an unconcealed reference

To failures the chief had sustained.”

LAUDABLE/LAUDATORY

(A proofreader's note regarding “laudable” and “laudatory”)

In “laud” and “applaud,” we see verbs of due “praise”

That remind of “cum laude” and bless.

Then adjectives “laudable,” “laudatory” both

Are suggestive of similar address.

The fanciful mind would relate them to “Lord”

And extend then a holy pretense.

But neither descriptor implies the religious 

By given conception or sense.

Since “worthy of being” is meaning of “able,”

Like “fit for” and “capable of,”

It's “worthy of being so lauded or praised”

That word “laudable” offers with love.

It grants us “praiseworthy” while also appending

“Though short of a total success”

As suitable rating of some noble effort,

Whatever might need such finesse.

Descriptive of things much more often than people

Is “laudable” when put to use.

It's commonly followed by “for” or by “in”

If positioned for after-verb clues.

In contrast to laudable, “laudatory” gives us

“Expressing/conferring true praise.”

The other fair usage is classification:

“Pertaining to praise and its ways.”

“A laudatory poem was selected per plan

In a laudable effort to please.

The actual recital was laudable for content,

And laudatory words did not cease.”

PRECIPITATE/PRECIPITOUS

(A proofreader's note regarding “precipitate” and “precipitous”)

From ancestor “precipice,” two words arose

As descriptors that meant much the same.

Distinguishing them in our nowadays prose

Is a tribute to forebearer fame.

With names that proclaim their high heritage shared,

They unveiled as “precipitate” first.

And then in due course, as if challenged and dared,

A “precipitous” came to be nursed.

Since “headlong collapse” or “a rapid descent 

From a height of great magnitude” was

A meaning that “precipice” held early on,

We can grant what each adjective does.

They both carry senses of “hasty” and “rushing”

As well as of “sudden” and “steep.”

But usage of each shows a preference distinct

Whether literal or not the conceit.

“Precipitate” indicates “acting or done with 

A haste that's undue or unwise,”

Else “marked by extreme speed or haste” as it puts

Metaphorical “headlong” in guise.

To also treat “steep,” it affords us with “happening

Suddenly/abruptly/too soon.”

But senses more literal coming from “steep”

Are within the “precipitous” tune.

“Precipitous” mainly concerns physical steepness,

With meaning of “extremely steep.”

As “sudden and great,” more so “hasty and rash,”

It is present but often asleep.

“Precipitate, though, was his dash to return

From this hike to the high mountain top;

By luck, there was heard some precipitous shouting

To mind the precipitous drop.”

MILITATE/MITIGATE

(A proofreader's note regarding “militate” and “mitigate”)

Some words may echo each a ring

That prompts the voice a tune to sing,

Which brings to mind their look akin

Though far apart their meanings swing.

Verbs “militate” and “mitigate”

Are two of such with lyric fate.

Yet “militate” might “warfare wage”

While “mitigate” would “softening” make.

For this is how these words began,

Though now less literal in their ways.

“To have effect, an influence strong”

Is “militate” in modern days.

Bereft of object that's direct,

Verb “militate” is still well met,

Its partner often being “against,”

If not “in favor of” as let.

Hence, “militate in favor of”

And “militate against” are fair,

Evoking “mitigate against”

By look and sound that there appear.

But “mitigate” from meaning clear

Affords “against” no role to match:

“To lessen painfulness or such

Of something harmful/serious/harsh.”

And, thus, the lilt of one verb sung

Did touch and move another's role.

The “mitigate against” mistake

At least has this to show/extol.

“Known wont to mitigate offense

Would militate against his stance,

Which militates in favor of

No mitigating steps and plans.”

NAUSEATED/NAUSEOUS

(A proofreader's note regarding “nauseous” and “nauseated”)

When “nauseous” arose in its noted debut

As descriptor from “nausea,” the noun,

The field was all clear of competitors near

That might clash with a similar sound.

Alas, in due course, the word “nauseate” came,

A young verb that seemed sneaky at best,

For with its arrival, new adjectives entered

That sought to put “nauseous” to rest.

“Nauseated” meant mainly “affected with nausea,”

More figuratively “filled with disgust.”

“Nauseating,” instead, with cause as its focus,

Meant “causing such nausea/disgust.”

Since “nausea” could tell of a vomit-prone sickness,

No less a disgust thought extreme,

These words made much sense, as did “nauseous” itself,

And could serve on an adjective team.

For “nauseous,” this brought an erosion of roles

Since already it held the two meanings,

Describing the state—being affected with nausea—

As well as the cause in its leanings.

Indeed, some suggested that “nauseous” be curbed,

Restricted to “causing” in usage.

Today, though, it’s “physically affected with nausea”

That wins out despite this clear homage.

“Nauseated,” they say, should be tapped for this meaning,

Especially by medical professionals.

“Nauseating” for “causing” may yet edge out “nauseous,”

Which scorns both these words as mere vandals.

“Not long after launch, he began to feel nauseous,

‘Nauseated,’ his doctor would say.

Then later, ashore, nauseating profanity

Almost did nausea replay.”

ODIOUS/ODOROUS

(A proofreader's note regarding “odious” and “odorous”)

Words “odious” and “odorous” seem curiously similar,

Beginning and ending the same.

Yet “ous” that they share as a final affair

Is the host of most likeness they claim.

The o-d of one sets itself quite apart

By its origin with “odium,” the noun.

This hearkens to “hatred—being subjected to it,”

Instead of to “odor” as found.

With “ous” as a suffix appended to either

(That former noun or to this last), 

“Possessing” or “full of” is added as meant by

The adjective that is then cast.

So, first, there is “odious”—“arousing/deserving

Repugnance or hatred/contempt,”

With “hateful” connoted as well as “distasteful”

And more with offensive intent.

Though almost a twin in both echo and profile,

Word “odorous” may not hint offense.

Its “having or full of an odor distinctive”

Comes often with some pleasant sense.

And, yes, it may mean that a thing is “malodorous”

As easily as labeling it “fragrant.”

When neither is meant, type of smell not being noted,

Its service is muted though elegant.

 If some seek to favor a word more complex,

“Odoriferous” steps up as choice.

Mistaking “odiferous” for the same word

Leaves out “odor” and mainly is noise.

“He lived with the odium of fellow professors,

Sustaining an odorous presence.

His habits were odious to all in his sphere

For the odorous emissions at lessons.”

THE PROOFREADER'S UNEASE

(Can the humble proofreader ever claim to “have proven”….?)

That proof is in the pudding

Is proven after oven;

But “oven” in one's “proven”

Is “proved” by simple vision.

So here we see that “proven”

Is participle likewise

To “proved” in sentence given;

 No doubt a cause of sad sighs.

For often it is questioned

Why these two words should battle

To prove the most deserving

To serve as only participle.

It leaves us quite unsettled

When choosing “proved” or “proven”:

What rule “has proved” its truth yet,

Or what “has proven” certain.

Though use by country varies,

Feel safe with “proved” in general.

It ends in “d” deliberate,

“Default” the clue in total.

For adjective, no quandary;

It's “proven,” recent risen.

Remember “proved” is also

The simple past when bidden.

ABILITY/CAPACITY

(A proofreader's note regarding “ability” and “capacity”)

While “ability” refers to actual and existing skill or aptitude that may be either innate or acquired, “capacity” in the context of skill relates to the innate characteristic of being able to develop something. “Capability” is similar, but it may imply “yet to be acquired.” It has a few slightly different meanings, the most distinctive of which is “a unique readiness to accomplish a specified objective.” In this regard, it demonstrates its "either/or" nature while also expressing potential.

“Ability,” “capacity,” 

And “capability”

May all to skill or aptitude

Refer with certainty.

Though in this mode, “capacity”

A prospect will imply,

Capacity is true innate,

Not made there on the fly.

Alike is “capability”;

Potential “p” it shares.

But native state it need need not be;

It often late appears.

And “capability” as well 

Is either yes or no.

It's not a matter of degree,

Worked up or native so.

“Ability,” though, as we know,

Means actual skill on tap;

The glass one gets may partial be,

Or flowing at the top.

There was a time “ability”

Was living-object bound.

Those days had simpler rules perhaps,

With clearer answers found.

When putting “capability”

Where was “ability,” 

Decide if measure's “yes or no”

Or if degree it be.

(—Reposted from www.medillumina.com)