Search us!

Search The Word Detective and our family of websites:

This is the easiest way to find a column on a particular word or phrase.

To search for a specific phrase, put it between quotation marks.






Comments are OPEN.

We deeply appreciate the erudition and energy of our commenters. Your comments frequently make an invaluable contribution to the story of words and phrases in everyday usage over many years.

Please note that comments are moderated, and will sometimes take a few days to appear.



shameless pleading






All brontosauruses are thin at one end, much, much thicker in the middle, and then thin again at the far end.

Dear Word Detective: I’m trying to explain to my husband, who is not a native English speaker, what the meaning and usage of “anathema” is and why we use it without an article. Googling definitions doesn’t seem to help. It’s a great word, when needed, but I can’t explain how we use it, and why it seems to be the only noun I know that we use without an article. Can you help? This came up when he asked me to look up a film called Anatema (2006), a film in Albanian (my husband’s native language). — Peg.

I know the feeling. I used to have dreams every so often in which I’d be trying to explain, with no success, some weirdness of the English language (of which there are many) to someone. The dreams were pretty obviously based on my experiences doing live radio call-in shows, where whatever question the caller was asking was inevitably about something (a) I had written about in the recent past (good), but (b) I had completely deleted the details about from my noggin as soon as the column was done (very, very bad). To make matters worse, I had a distressing tendency to announce (a) before realizing (b), making myself sound like a total boob. To this day listening to anyone doing a radio call-in show fills me with anxiety.

“Anathema” is a strange little word, even by the inconsistent rules and standards of modern English. The first thing to remember about English, or any language, is that popular usage always trumps whatever rules we think should apply. If enough people do it for long enough, it becomes “correct,” or at least acceptable.

“Anathema” first appeared in print in English in the 16th century as an ecclesiastical term imported from the Latin “anathema,” which meant “something accursed, an evil or accursed person.” Oddly enough, the root of that Latin “anathema,” the Greek “anathema,” originally meant “something devoted to the gods” (from “ana,” up, plus “tithenai,” to place). Over time, however, the Greek “anathema” developed the negative meaning of “something or someone devoted to evil.” That meaning carried over into Latin, and then English, where today we use “anathema” to mean both someone who is literally cursed or excommunicated from a religious group or, more broadly, a thing or person greatly loathed or hated. For a fairly obscure word unchanged in form for a couple of thousand years, “anathema” remains remarkably popular today, and a search of Google News turns up more than 500 uses in the news today (“There was a time in America when such blatant hypocrisy was anathema to voters,” Boston Globe, 10/19/10?).

As that Boston Globe use illustrates, the odd thing about “anathema” is that, although it’s a noun, it is often (usually, in fact) used without the customary preceding article “an.” The Oxford English Dictionary classifies “anathema” as both a noun and a “quasi-adjective,” which neatly captures this usage. We use “anathema” as we might use a more conventional adjective such as “repulsive” or “abhorrent,” although we only use it in this way as the predicate of a verb (e.g., “Hypocrisy is anathema to voters,” not “His anathema hypocrisy angered voters”). Of course, we also use it as a normal noun with an article (“Bob’s drinking was an anathema to his boss”).

Why do we do such an odd, theoretically grammatically improper thing as using “anathema” without “an”? I can’t think of another word that is used in an exactly equivalent way, although some other nouns used as adjectives (e.g., “legion”) come close. The “an”-less use may have arisen because saying “an anathema” aloud is a bit awkward (and reminiscent of the great “Anne Elk” Monty Python sketch). It may have become popular because the literal sense of “anathema” as “accursed person or thing” has faded over time and all that’s left is an abstract noun that makes a better adjective. But whatever the original logic, we do it today because “anathema” without an article has become an accepted English idiom, and idioms are, conveniently for all of us, exempt from logic.

15 comments to Anathema

  • Shelley

    The use of anathema as a noun without the article has always driven me crazy. I was glad to find out that it is actually OK to use an article, so should I ever have the occasion to use the word (doesn’t come up all that often for me) I plan to use “an anathema”.

    • Ben

      ugh! Thanks, Shelly. I can’t stand this word, despise its wrongful deployment as the only “adjective-noun” in the World…and you just know that people say: “It was anathema to him” because nobody had the patience for the “Anne Elk” effect of “an anathema.”

    • John

      Me too. Thank You. Another example of people misusing the language and changing it in the process.

  • Mirkat

    Shelley, I agree. “Anathema” without the “an” hurts my ears (or eyes when I’m reading). (I’m also more of an “a myriad of” girl–i.e. “a myriad of possibilities” instead of “myriad possibilities.”)

  • Mark

    I agree with both of you. I have occasionally used the word and have noticed that I seem to be the only person using the article. In fact, I came across a website where the use of the article was apparently an anathema to the posters. I will now stick to my guns and continue to use “an.”

  • Tara

    I’ve heard many people mispronounce it as an “aneethma”, and I have even seen it written in newspapers as an “enethma”, so it is confusing. Of course, I saw a newspaper print that the President said he was going to be “pottering” around in his back yard instead of “puttering” around, so I guess anything goes nowadays.

  • tommie miller

    “Chomping at the bit” instead of “Champing at the bit” has always driven me crazy. And yes, I have no idea why anathema is used without the article.

    • C Le Verdic

      Well, Tommie, you’ve just used it (well, OK, 2 years ago) perfectly acceptably without an article. Consider it to be like hypocrisy. Does that need an article?

      • Chris

        C Le Verdic I’m not sure you understand the meaning of hypocrisy. Your comment might possibly make sense if Tommie said something like “anathema should never be used without an article.” I would still argue it’s not being hypocritical because he was merely referring to the word itself, but at least then I’d see your point. No, he simply pointed out that he wasn’t sure why it’s used without the article, without any judgment as to whether it was a good or bad thing to do.

        Would you find “I have no idea why I love rice” to be hypocritical? It’s the same concept.

        • I think C Le Verdic was referring to the word hypocrisy and how we use it, not accusing you or anyone else of being hypocritical. Here’s an example sentence: “I think his pro-family rhetoric is nothing but hypocrisy.” It seems to be a pattern in English that we don’t use articles with most character qualities or personal attributes. I think that’s because we see them as ubiquitous abstracts that people can tap into, not as individual items that people can own. Saying a hypocrisy, a generosity or an anathema would imply that these things come in units that can be counted.

  • Dr. Drew Moore

    I enjoyed your posts and replies about an anathema. Another one that really irks me is how people now say, ” an historic.” Some asshole news reader started this in the ’90s, in the US, as far as I can remember. In US English, we pronounce hard Hs. This misuse is so annoying. Enthused, dissed or disrespected, irregardless are some others.
    Thanks and all the best.

    • Dan S.

      “An historic” bothers me too. But it started long before the ’90s. I think I first noticed it around 1970. And it was probably something that was copied from British usage, where it may once have actually made sense.

  • Edward Raso

    I found this thread by searching if I might modify ‘Anathema’ to ‘Anathemic’ to make it an adjective. I see now that I cannot. This would solve the nound/adjective hybrid problem, IMHO.

  • And I just found your reply, Edward, by searching for the same reason. I’m thinking I may still use “anathemic” – despite that annoying red underline to scold me.

Leave a Reply to Chris Cancel reply




You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Please support
The Word Detective

by Subscribing.


Follow us on Twitter!




Makes a great gift! Click cover for more.

400+ pages of science questions answered and explained for kids -- and adults!