words most often used incorrectly

[HaphAsSard]

Fair enough. That being said, just because a language should be allowed to "evolve", that shouldn't mean that we adopt a policy of using any version of English we choose as individuals. "You talk/write like you want to and I'll talk/write like I want to."

Many posts here lately have little or no punctuation. I can't read them. And, no, I do not accept that the poster is simply expressing himself in a way that "works for him".

Gradually evolving is one thing. Tossing the rules out the window because those rules are "arbitrary", and things will eventually change anyway, is (in my view) ridiculous.

I agree with this. Most of all, rules of great practical value should be upheld, as @hrodbert696 pointed out. Predictability and convention play a great role in communication: a wall of text with little or no paragraphs, capitals and punctuation require an unacceptable degree of deciphering on the reader's part; sure, I can do it, but ain't nobody got time for dat* as you said. The writer should put in a little effort, also considering he/she benefits from properly formatted text daily as a reader. Moreover, again as Hrodbert said, the more complex the ideas, the more you and the intended audience can benefit from the tools developed and refined by writers since the Classical age specifically to express elaborate concepts.


*EDIT - the need for ease in reading is itself not an immutable fact: it's a consequence of the rise of the written word as a democratic, ubiquitous and necessary medium, which requires the ability to read silently and as fast as possible. In medieval times spelling consistency was less of a concern because a certain degree of decoding, and the time to perform it, by the reader was assumed and expected; hence the coexistence of widely different spellings even by the same scribe and in the very same line.

 

[knumbskull]

I was going to say "Platonic" but I checked and it's in the dictionary now with the "new" meaning (sexless love).

I always thought it was about the ideal of beauty... oh well.

 

[Coriolis]

My post was more directed toward the "lucked out" expression. I couldn't care less that people use "I could care less" incorrectly.

How about a "near miss" which is actually a collision?

 

[Coriolis]

Since when has texting become a proper substitute for writing?

I teach undergraduate and graduate college students who cannot punctuate, spell, or use entire words. Some use "b/c" and "b4" in term papers.

We read and write English, not bingo.

 

[J-Bassomatic]

I'm not even saying you're not entitled to be irked by it. You are. Everyone has a personal language aesthetic. I'm only saying it's, in and of itself, no more deplorable than folks saying "agian", "cawfee", "sayin'", "mayun", "dahnce", "aboot" or every specific accent feature you can think of, including your own. Think of Dubliners saying "tin" for "thin": how is it any more excusable than "ax for"? It's not. Just another effect of sound changes which are very common cross-linguistically.

My personal contributions are "alternate" for "alternative" and "giving free reign". It's actually "free rein", folks.


Nope. What is necessary - nay, simply an inevitable fact - in human communication is grammar in the descriptive sense (the structure of what is actually said, be it "proper" or not): in a given speech community certain constructions are not allowed by the language as it has evolved and simply do not happen, unless it's for comedic effect (think Yoda syntax) or induced by slips of the tongue. Prescriptive grammar is superfluous: many languages manage without one just fine. On the other hand, what seems to be normal is that every speech community, however small, develops a prevalent taste: if a given language, spoken, say, in fifteen villages in New Guinea, has two dialects, chances are one of them is regarded as less prestigious than the other, even by many of its own speakers. Also, once prescriptive grammar and spelling rules (writing is also another accident in human communication, our species did without it for aeons) happen, they are to be reckoned with. They are far from set in stone though: invent a time machine, fetch a 17th century educated speaker to our time and watch him or her cringe at every other perfectly proper (modern) English expression of yours.

I didn't mean to sound like I was disagreeing with you. I find your explanations to be very clear and well reasoned and it's obvious you are well read. I noticed you did not use expressions that might cast doubt on that. This is what I'm saying. I read a lot so I see how things are spelled and organized, I know I'm not going to come across 'baited breath' in a major publication such as The New Yorker magazine. Speaking of the New Yorker and this thread, there was a cartoon in one issue that depicted a gravestone on which was written "He Literally Died".
Anyway, I think the impression you leave on people who use these 'terms of endearment' is one of being NOT well read. I know language changes, I've read some things on it too. If I signed up for a literature or English course and the professor said, "I want to ax you a question," that course would get dropped.
Thanks for your informative posts though, good reading!

 

[Biggbass]

lol...It will take a while to compile my list.

But let's start with "more" VS "er" or "est" as in: More Wet VS Wetter...
this is maybe the single most misused use of the English language, especially
in "professional" journalism, than any other.

 

[farace]

Agreed. I see the same thing in student writing; the use of the apostrophe is a complete mystery. They just sprinkle them over the page randomly and hope that it's correct some of the time.

In my instance, I work for a legal publisher. The people whose writing I'm finding this in are superior court judges (or perhaps their clerks). These are educated, intelligent persons. Granted, they're often overworked and the court opinions are sometimes rushed out without much opportunity for polishing them, but some of the typos still astound me.

 

[J-Bassomatic]

Paragraphing is a fading art.

Well, it should be. Jumping out airplanes is a very dangerous thing to do.

 

[Bob_Ross]

I'll tell you what's been bugging me lately, news people using adjectives as adverbs.

Using verbs as nouns (mostly in the business world)

Those both remind me of an observation a friend made a couple decades ago:

"These days" he said "any noun can be verbed."

 

[slobake]

"Can I ask you a quick question?"

"No."

"Okay. I need somone who can blah,blah, blah, blah, blah, and then blah,blah, blah,blah ... do you blah, blah, blah, blah? Because I need blah, blah, blah, blah. How many blah, blah, blah, blah? When can blah, blah, blah, blah? Because certain individuals blah, blah, blah, blah ... And then she said blah, blah, blah ..."

"Hold it. That is not a quick guestion. It is several long drawn out questions accompanied by seemingly endless dialogue."

 

[hrodbert696]

I agree with this. Most of all, rules of great practical value should be upheld, as @hrodbert696 pointed out. Predictability and convention play a great role in communication: a wall of text with little or no paragraphs, capitals and punctuation require an unacceptable degree of deciphering on the reader's part; sure, I can do it, but ain't nobody got time for dat* as you said. The writer should put in a little effort, also considering he/she benefits from properly formatted text daily as a reader. Moreover, again as Hrodbert said, the more complex the ideas, the more you and the intended audience can benefit from the tools developed and refined by writers since the Classical age specifically to express elaborate concepts.


*EDIT - the need for ease in reading is itself not an immutable fact: it's a consequence of the rise of the written word as a democratic, ubiquitous and necessary medium, which requires the ability to read silently and as fast as possible. In medieval times spelling consistency was less of a concern because a certain degree of decoding, and the time to perform it, by the reader was assumed and expected; hence the coexistence of widely different spellings even by the same scribe and in the very same line.

The 4th century bishop Augustine of Hippo has this interesting anecdote about when he first met Bishop Ambrose of Milan. He found Ambrose reading, and was confused at first, then amazed... because Ambrose was staring into a book, but his lips didn't even move! It took the younger man a couple of minutes to realize that Ambrose was reading. Augustine himself was a highly literate and educated man. But what the story illustrates is that, in ancient cultures, language was fundamentally oral, not written. Written texts were there as memory aids to prompt (and record) your speech. Books were generally composed by dictation to scribes. So even someone as educated as Augustine was surprised at the sight of a person reading silently, not even murmuring to himself as he read.

You can see this in ancient manuscripts: most don't have any punctuation, nor paragraphs, nor even spaces between words. Even poetry runs across the page in solid blocks of text; you know it's poetry by feeling the rhythm as you speak it, not by how it looks on the page. It's in the Middle Ages, as you get more and more monks using books for private, silent devotional reading, that words start to get spaced out from each other and punctuation added to facilitate being able to understand the text without having to read it aloud.

Medieval school teachers did write books of orthography to try to teach their students correct (Latin) spelling. But actual practice could be very... flexible. In my studies I deal with this one particular 8th century Duke of Bavaria. Modern historians most often give his name as "Odilo," which does appear in some of the most important manuscripts. But other manuscripts give the name as "Otilo," "Ottilo," "Othloh," "Uattilo" and "UUadalo.' That can be fun to keep track of.

 

[5544]

Fear of heights.

The correct term should be "fear of falling from a great height and living afterwards."

 

[FunkBear]

Many people tend to use the word ironic incorrectly.

 

[shadowtippy]

I/me seems difficult for a lot of people. "They gave it to she and I." You wouldn't say "They gave it to I," would you?

 

[hondo4life]

"Can I ask you a quick question?"

"No."

"Okay. I need somone who can blah,blah, blah, blah, blah, and then blah,blah, blah,blah ... do you blah, blah, blah, blah? Because I need blah, blah, blah, blah. How many blah, blah, blah, blah? When can blah, blah, blah, blah? Because certain individuals blah, blah, blah, blah ... And then she said blah, blah, blah ..."

"Hold it. That is not a quick guestion. It is several long drawn out questions accompanied by seemingly endless dialogue."

What do you except after turning down they're request for a quick question. You should a said yes.

 

[Fishheadjoe]

Not quite what the OP is asking for, but few words that bug me are;
-nuclear -not nuculur, nuclear! I've heard highly educated folks say it wrong and to me, it makes them sound silly.
-y'all - what the heck is a "y'all"? Too lazy to pronounce two letters?
-axe - you can't axe me a question, but you can ask me a question- lazyness!
Just a few off the top of my head.
Fishheadjoe

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

Literally

Guy on TV just said he literally gave his Blood, Sweat & Tears!
Oh, really?
Who drew your blood?

Did he Go Down Gambling? Did he ride a painted pony and let the spinning wheel spin? Does he do this Sometimes in Winter?

 

[J-Bassomatic]

OK, can o' worms time. "Myself" as in "Please see John or myself about the program." "Please see myself about a grammar book."
It's ME.
I will do it by myself is correct.
Please see me for more information.
Please see Jim or me for more information.
I know haphAsSard is probably waiting for me on this one.

 

[ThudThudThud]

Hung vs. Hanged. "They hung him." No, they hanged him.
Dove vs. Dived. I know "dove" is accepted speech now, but it still makes me cringe. When someone says it as a past tense of 'dive' I'll interject, "A small white pigeon?"

 

[JohnDeereJack]

There are plenty of examples I could give but my main gripe is 'of' instead of 'have', as in; 'I should of learned how to use a plectrum instead of just using my fingers'.
Noooo, you should HAVE learned how to use a plectrum instead of just using your fingers!
It actually infuriates me...