List of 10 common English usage errors

[JimmySeal]

Oh, come now. You wouldn't have us to believe you're putting them back in the box to be sold as new again, would you?

Well I usually take them to ALPHA OFF and sell them off. I only get back 1/10th what I paid for 'em, and they sell them at 60% retail price, but at least they're getting a new home. Sometimes I reuse them myself when I have to use a lot of words like "expectorative emergence."

 

[ArmandV]

I know of a "hotshot" writer who can't seem to use the correct word for "premiere" when writing about a movie opening. He manages to always spell it "premier" (as in head of state). But he's not the only one who does this.

Another one is the word "per se." I remember an article where he used "per say." I suppose that's why God made editors.

 

[Kinsao]

Ohh, I'm afraid I haven't read the whole of this thread, but...

One thing that bugs me is when people write "taking the reigns" instead of the "reins". It's REINS, man, REINS!!!!!! Those leather strap thingies! :nuts:

I'm a selective grammar Nazi. I sometimes have to do proof reading, and I'm constantly surprised by the bad spelling, punctuation and grammar I find in formal reports submitted by people who have MAs and doctorates. The occasional typo is understandable, but apostrophes in the wrong place? Random capitalisations? (Usually to try and make something look important... "a Report was submitted on..." )

On the internet, though, it doesn't bother me, because there are so many non-native speakers that I've got used to seeing all sorts of English. It only bugs me if it's totally unreadable, or obvious that the person is doing it on purpose because they think it makes them look cooler. :angryfire:

 

[JimmySeal]

The same goes for "free rein." It's not "free reign." But I can't say I see either of those rein expressions very often anyway.

 

[Fehrant]

I understand your point, Fehrant, and would just add, again, that THAT not need to be the case--I mean there is really no need to correct, per se, but one could ask for further explanation. . . that would be giving more room for margin. (Again, I will admit that there may well be those few extenuating circumstances, where notice of error could prove to be better.) MM

So long as the sentence is understandable, I can adhere to the "let it slip" stance. Having a couple of typos on a long-winded paragraph doesn't take your humanity away (I'm being sarcastic here, in case anyone feels to point out the lack of literal sense), although having several typos per sentence really does make me wonder if the person is either a non-native undergoing a learning process, just distracted, or needs to take Typing 101.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Another one I hate is when people say 'literally', when they mean 'figuratively', e.g., "I was so hungry I was literally starving to death" (note that I remembered the comma after e.g. ).

How about 'ect' instead of 'etc'? It stands for 'et cetera', meaning 'and the others'.

Pleonasms are quite common too, although sometimes they can be used for emphasis, like 'completely destroyed' or 'totally unnecessary'. Ones I hate are 'reverse backwards', 'PIN number', 'free gratis', 'more better/easier/bigger' etc, 'round circle', 'totally/completely/very unique', 'wall mural'.

Some of the difference between UK and US English jar with me, for example, practice/practise. In British English, 'practice' is a noun, 'practise' a verb. So in the UK, you can't say 'practicing'. But in US English, 'practice' is OK as a verb and a noun. Still, 'practicing' looks plain wrong to me. Similarly for lisense/licence. The US uses the 's' spelling for both, we use 'license' as a verb, 'licence' as a noun. One more: dependent/dependant. UK: 'dependent' is an adjective, 'dependant' is a noun. US: 'dependent' is usually used in both cases.

 

[Mike Cash]

In the U.S., the dependent/dependant distinction is the same. Blame ignorance if you see "dependent" used as a noun.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

In the U.S., the dependent/dependant distinction is the same. Blame ignorance if you see "dependent" used as a noun.

Ignorance condoned by Columbia University? Surely not! Homework Help and Textbook Solutions | bartleby

 

[Mike Cash]

Ignorance condoned by Columbia University? Surely not! Homework Help and Textbook Solutions | bartleby

American universities are hotbeds of ignorance.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

American universities are hotbeds of ignorance.

That could start a whole new discussion

 

[JimmySeal]

American Heritage dictionary:
dependent - also dependant One who relies on another especially for financial support.
dependant - Variant of dependent

Merriam-Webster OnLine:
dependent - Variant(s) also dependant
1 archaic : DEPENDENCY
2 : one that is dependent; especially : a person who relies on another for support
You'll find the above entry if you try to look up dependant. That is to say, it doesn't have an entry for dependant and automatically redirects.

Genius, 3d edition
dependent - ﾂ〔ﾅｽﾃ･窶堙俄?｢ﾃ?〕ﾂ?‥ependant
dependant - ﾂ〔ﾅｽﾃ･窶堙俄?ｰpﾂ〕窶伉ｼﾂ人窶堙俄?版?窶堙≫?堙?青ｶﾅ?ﾋ??堋ｷ窶堙ｩﾂ人


Apparently dictionaries are hotbeds of ignorance too.
Out of curiosity, which universities in the world, if any, aren't breeding morons in your opinion, Mr. Cash?

 

[Mike Cash]

Out of curiosity, which universities in the world, if any, aren't breeding morons in your opinion, Mr. Cash?

Whichever ones turn out people who think as I do.

 

[JimmySeal]

Ah, that's very specific, yet at the same time not specific at all.

Interesting paradox.


By the way, I recently noticed that the author of the site Japan from the Driver's Seat published the sentence:

There are many things which make Japan unique, but at the most basic level it is no different than any other place.

on their site which is clearly in violation of Flagrant English Misuse, Rule #7.

The person also uses the word "whereever," which is obviously not a real word.

There's an e-mail link on the site, so you can give the person a talking-to if you feel like it, Mr. Cash. I don't feel up to it.

 

[Glenn]

Whichever ones turn out people who think as I do.

That's hilarious! hahahaha

 

[Kinsao]

I've actually seen people write 'peace' when they mean 'piece' - such as "I've said my peace." Holy --!!

Another thing that gives me headaches at work is the 'advisor/adviser' thing - that's a word we tend to use a lot. Dictionary.com says it can be spelled (spelt?) either way.

 

[Fehrant]

Pleonasms are quite common too, although sometimes they can be used for emphasis, like 'completely destroyed' or 'totally unnecessary'. Ones I hate are 'reverse backwards', 'PIN number', 'free gratis', 'more better/easier/bigger' etc, 'round circle', 'totally/completely/very unique', 'wall mural'.

I don't think pleonasms are as common as people messing up words (in the Internet anyway), or replacing incorrect yet similar sounding words with one another. Not as common, or as annoying, however redundant they might be.

Regarding your comment of American and British English, I think these are mere technical discrepancies that can be overlooked, especially in a diversified forum such as this one -- no one has the right to say "in Rome do like Romans do" in here. Even so, while these differences might vex you, they do not necessarily make a sentence less understandable since, as you properly demonstrated, are aware of the existence of them.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Fehrant - you're right, the differences between UK and US English don't interfere with understanding. I think the reason they (irrationally) annoy me is this: while learning these sorts of rules I was mostly exposed to British English. Nowadays I probably see more US English. There is a conflict in my mind between what I was taught is correct (and what I was mostly seeing at that time), and what I am mostly seeing now. In my head it goes something like, "Aargh, that's wrong ... no, wait a minute, that's OK "

 

[Mike Cash]

By the way, I recently noticed that the author of the site Japan from the Driver's Seat published the sentence:
on their site which is clearly in violation of Flagrant English Misuse, Rule #7.

Perhaps he was thinking of his Dutch friends.

He also does things like using a singular noun (such as "author") and then later referring to it with a plural pronoun (such as "their). He has problems.

 

[JimmySeal]

From Definition of they | Dictionary.com

Usage Note: The use of the third-person plural pronoun they to refer to a singular noun or pronoun is attested as early as 1300, and many admired writers have used they, them, themselves, and their to refer to singular nouns such as one, a person, an individual, and each.

Really, any other choice for a gender-neutral third person singular pronoun is -
sterile (one)
clunky (he or she)
sexist (he)
overcompensating (she)
dehumanizing (it)
ridiculous (s/he)


The only rational choice is they. If we're lucky, someday everybody will be using they this way. The Australian government has already officially sanctioned its use and recommends it over "he or she." After all, nowadays anybody who uses different pronouns for second person singular and plural just sounds silly. Thinkst thou not so, Mr. Cash?

 

[Glenn]

After all, nowadays anybody who uses different pronouns for second person singular and plural just sounds silly. Thinkst thou not so, Mr. Cash?

I don't. Why would you think that?

 

[Mike Cash]

From Definition of they | Dictionary.com
Really, any other choice for a gender-neutral third person singular pronoun is -
sterile (one)
clunky (he or she)
sexist (he)
overcompensating (she)
dehumanizing (it)
ridiculous (s/he)
The only rational choice is they.

I already said I use the same thing, so why are you crawling up my a$$ about it?

Anyway, you knew the author of the site is male, so the correct choice was "he".

If we're lucky, someday everybody will be using they this way. The Australian government has already officially sanctioned its use and recommends it over "he or she."

How very nice it must be to have one's government lay down proscriptions for language use.

After all, nowadays anybody who uses different pronouns for second person singular and plural just sounds silly. Thinkst thou not so, Mr. Cash?

I have used different pronouns for second person singular and plural all my life.

 

[JimmySeal]

I already said I use the same thing, so why are you crawling up my a$$ about it?

I didn't notice that. Where was that again?

Anyway, you knew the author of the site is male, so the correct choice was "he".

If I can feign ignorance of someone's identity, I can certainly feign ignorance of their gender. That's how sarcasm works, as well thou knowst.

How very nice it must be to have one's government lay down proscriptions for language use.

The French, Italians, Spanish, Latin America and countless others don't seem to mind too much having governing bodies for their languages. Besides, the Australian Govt. isn't saying "you have to do it this way. They're saying "we'd like you to do it this way."

I have used different pronouns for second person singular and plural all my life.

Which, if I may be so bold to ask thee?

 

[Glenn]

I'm going to assume they're the same as the ones I've used all my life: "you" and "y'all." Even if they aren't, I'm missing your point on this one.

 

[Mike Cash]

Which, if I may be so bold to ask thee?

Get that sideways stick out of your a$$ and you can ask me anything you like.

 

[JimmySeal]

If that's the case, one could surely argue that since y'all is a contraction of you and all, that it's not a pronoun in its own right, but just an amalgamation of two pronouns.