johnaesthetica
Wilmington
Login to Send PM
Does anyone else cringe when they see these words confused, almost daily? It's quickly becoming the most commonly made mistake I see, both written and spoken. Just today, Maureen Dowd misused anxious in her column about W. (Granted, she was quoting Bush, but she could have corrected him instead of affirming it.)
Maybe I'm just a grammar nazi, but the words are far from the same thing. This one's worse than affect/effect, because at least those words mean close to the same thing.
hazy stars
The Brauhaus
Login to Send PM
Totally with you on this, John.
I am a "grammar nazi" as well.
My pet peeve is jealousy and envy.
johnaesthetica
Wilmington
Login to Send PM
Ndcent wrote Poopy.
qft.
Yeah, I can see the jealousy, envy one as well. Another phrase that gets misused a lot is "begs the question." That almost never gets used correctly, and I just found out I've been misusing it for years. Hah.
Bear
The woods
Login to Send PM
Mine is words or phrases that enough people, over time, take to mean the opposite of what they actually mean that dictionaries finally cave in and adopt a second, completely contradictory definition.
Begging the question is one example.
Edit --
johnaesthetica wrote Another phrase that gets misused a lot is "begs the question." That almost never gets used correctly
Beat me to it!
johnaesthetica
Wilmington
Login to Send PM
shmack wrote intensive purposes.Hah!
Yes. Thank you. Ann Fisher used it correctly (intents and purposes) in one of her more recent columns, and I mentally grinned.
daniel
Old Town East
Login to Send PM
along the lines of misheard phrases:
i have a friend on facebook who's daughter had a seizer. It's impossibly to correct in that situation.
I, myself, walked into a (somewhat rednecky) motorcycle shop looking for a certain kind of air filter I repeatedly called Cannanne. It was, in fact, a K&N air filter I was looking for.
Bear wrote Mine is words or phrases that enough people, over time, take to mean the opposite of what they actually mean that dictionaries finally cave in and adopt a second, completely contradictory definition.
I struggle with the bastardization of the language. I think Emerson did some writing on the dilution of the meaning of words over time. Older English (not Old English necessarily) and British English are so much more precise and colorful. I sometimes wonder if it’s only that it’s different to my ear, but I don't think that's it.
The counter argument is that language is alive and dynamic. There is something to be said for the fluidity, but I still say it’s a degradation. The dictionaries are forced to change, but it makes it difficult to know if the provided definition is ‘right’.
Does anyone follow the James J. Kilpatrick writing columns? He gets repetitive after a while. His 'placement of the word only' column seems to run every few months.
I'll add 'I could care less' as my pet peeve.
Bear
The woods
Login to Send PM
XLD wrote The counter argument is that language is alive and dynamic. There is something to be said for the fluidity, but I still say it’s a degradation. The dictionaries are forced to change, but it makes it difficult to know if the provided definition is ‘right’.
There's a necessary balance, in dictionaries, between prescriptive and descriptive. Realizing that neither extreme is realistic, I lean toward more prescriptive than most people do.
thefightinglibrarian
Running after the 'Bus
Login to Send PM
Bear wroteXLD wrote The counter argument is that language is alive and dynamic. There is something to be said for the fluidity, but I still say it’s a degradation. The dictionaries are forced to change, but it makes it difficult to know if the provided definition is ‘right’.There's a necessary balance, in dictionaries, between prescriptive and descriptive. Realizing that neither extreme is realistic, I lean toward more prescriptive than most people do.
And dictionaries often reflect usage rather than grammar. ("Ain't" IS in the dictionary.) The dictionary ain't no knight and shining armor...
My type-A pet peeves are when people confuse "impact" and "affect" and use the word "quote" (verb) instead of "quotation" (noun.) Also, "in hopes of" and "in regards to"-- where those s's come from, I have no idea....
Ahhh, a little grammar obession vent ... I feel better already. :lol:
WildmanDan
W. Hubbard/Vic Village
Login to Send PM
ratzo wrote Bah... the greatest threat to the language by far is internet-speak...OMG CU IS TEH ROXXORS!!11!!!LOLOL
:roll:
You could also add text messaging.
michaelcoyote
!seabus
Login to Send PM
johnaesthetica wroteshmack wrote intensive purposes.Hah!Yes. Thank you. Ann Fisher used it correctly (intents and purposes) in one of her more recent columns, and I mentally grinned.
Wow, I've never run into that one..
I think I might become violent if I ever heard someone say that.
AmyArt21
Short North
Login to Send PM
Sometimes I find myself actually speaking in LOLCat lingo.
I am pretty sure I yelled "OH NOES!" the other day.
KTHXBYE.
p.s. I am making a few LOLCats pendants.
Check the Sweet Stella shop in the next few days! http://sweetstella.etsy.com
daniel
Old Town East
Login to Send PM
AmyArt21 wrotep.s. I am making a few LOLCats pendants.
Check the Sweet Stella shop in the next few days! http://sweetstella.etsy.com
U IZ MEH HERO! IMMA LOV IT!
You must log in to post.
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus. Click here to visit TheMetropreneur.com.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
