Favorite mis-used words and phrases....

[Elloelle]

Two phrases that can always make me spew coffee from my nose:

"It's a mute point." (MOOT) It's NOT a mute point. I just spoke it aloud.

"Wet your Appetite." (WHET) Sharpen it. Don't drown it.

What are some of your favorite misuses of words and phrases?

 

[LoquiSordidaAdMe]

"I could care less."

If you could care less, then you must care, at least a little.

If you really don't care at all, then you couldn't care less.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I've mentioned before that there are a couple of stories on this site where authors didn't know the difference between "burglar" and "bugler".

 

[sr71plt]

Using "here, here" when it should be "hear, hear" (from the British Parliament).

When it occurs on the discussion board, I typically post "Where? Where?" but the poster rarely "gets in."

 

[rjordan]

Calvary vs cavalry

Granted I rarely see references to either on Lit, but elsewhere I see calvary used when it should be cavalry. I don't see the reciprocal mistake very often.

rj

 

[NotWise]

I've mentioned before that there are a couple of stories on this site where authors didn't know the difference between "burglar" and "bugler".

You caught me on the difference between 'hansom' and 'handsome'

 

[latecomer91364]

You caught me on the difference between 'hansom' and 'handsome'

Some hansom cabs are quite handsome.

I dislike redundant phrases that people use, like 'as per usual' or (as or per will do the job quite nicely on their own).

I see too many people who forget the beginning of the sentence by the time they reach the end of it: 'Currently we are involved in a very lengthy discussion right now'.

And ' I self-medicated myself'.

 

[Hypoxia]

Peeked curiosity, or a fit of peak.

"It seems to me that..." and other voluble weaseling.

Limited vocabularies. C'mon, learn more words!

 

[NotWise]

Limited vocabularies. C'mon, learn more words!

I have a bigger problem with writers who use words they don't need. Especially adverbs.

 

[SimonDoom]

I'm surprised at how often "lose" and "loose" are mixed up. I've seen that in at least a few stories on this site.

 

[sr71plt]

Calvary vs cavalry

Granted I rarely see references to either on Lit, but elsewhere I see calvary used when it should be cavalry. I don't see the reciprocal mistake very often.

rj

Yeah, that's one I have to look up each time I use it--but I do know I have to look it up.

 

[sr71plt]

I'm surprised at how often "lose" and "loose" are mixed up. I've seen that in at least a few stories on this site.

"chose" and "choose" too. And "shot" and "shoot."

 

[latecomer91364]

Anybody who says or writes 'irregardless'.

 

[SimonDoom]

Anybody who says or writes 'irregardless'.

Yup. That's nails on a chalkboard.

 

[SamScribble]

'Tenderhooks' always make me blink.

 

[sr71plt]

A strange one, and it doesn't bother me, but it doesn't seem to be known very far that, in U.S. publishing, it's "good-bye" (with a hyphen), not "goodbye." And, being an editor, although it doesn't outrage me, it jumps off the page at me when I'm editing someone else's copy.

Also, it's "T-shirt," not "tee shirt" or anything else. The derivation of the word is from the shape of the shirt: T.

 

[latecomer91364]

It's not 'The proof is in the pudding!' It's 'The proof of the pudding is in the eating!'

I know, it's possibly the evolution of a proverb or saying through common usage, like:

Ilsa: Play it once, Sam. For old times' sake.
Sam: I don't know what you mean, Miss Ilsa.
Ilsa: Play it, Sam. Play "As Time Goes By."

Or Rick's (to whom the false quote is commonly attributed) later request: "You played it for her, you can play it for me!"

Either of these is what became:

"Play me that song that I used to love but now cuts me to the depth of my soul", or something like that - I don't remember exactly.

Signed: The King of Digression

 

[rjordan]

Anybody who says or writes 'irregardless'.

Irregardless, it's a real word,

https://www.merriam-webster.com/video/irregardless

Kory Stamper is a national treasure.

rj

 

[PervOtaku]

One of the worst ones is "for all intensive purposes", because now you're past a simple one-word homophone mix-up and are putting words together that don't actually make sense in any context.

 

[latecomer91364]

Irregardless, it's a real word,

https://www.merriam-webster.com/video/irregardless

Kory Stamper is a national treasure.

rj

'First used in dialectical American speech in the early twentieth century'. This from the type of people one would expect to be scholarly, but in fact pander to the modern masses by putting stuff like 'Jiggy' in the dictionary (as in Will Smith 'Getting jiggy with it').

It's similar to Ebonics. It has no useful link to the actual etymology of words. To add the suffix 'less', indicates that there would be the word 'irregard' that could stand on its own. Of course, the actual operative word would be disregard

Etymology shouldn't be populist. I am more of a purist than some, but putting shit in a dictionary to remain relevant used to be beneath those from who we expect linguistic authority.

'Irregardless' belongs in the Urban Dictionary, not Mirriam-Webster, who has obviously prostituted their tradition.

It's just another example of the decline of pure scholarly pursuit, thrown over for the crumpled bills a whore grabs off the dresser.

 

[Elloelle]

Anybody who says or writes 'irregardless'.

So it IS regarded. Or is it? Double negatives confuse me, especially in the same word.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Irregardless, it's a real word,

https://www.merriam-webster.com/video/irregardless

Kory Stamper is a national treasure.

rj

Indeed she is!

That said, M-W's position on this isn't really exceptional. I compared M-W's notes on "irregardless" with those from Oxford, Collins, and American Heritage. They all acknowledge it, and they all say pretty much the same things about it: it's a non-standard usage, it probably originated as a blend of "irrespective" and "regardless", and although it's been around for a long time it's far from universally accepted so it may be better avoided.

The prescriptivists gave up the fight some time ago, at least in English. To the best of my knowledge every major English-language dictionary now takes a descriptivist stance: the point of a dictionary is to record how people do use the language, not to decide how they ought to.

As the great James Nicoll put it, "The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore."

 

[latecomer91364]

When I was a kid, there was a joke: "'Ain't' ain't in the dictionary."

As stated above, the fact that MW or The Oxford-English Dictionary (I expected better from them), businesses that print dictionaries for sale would give 'irregardless' the status of a real word merely places it alongside other ridiculous entries such as "Frankenfood', 'Bouncebackability', 'Grrrl' and 'Screenager'.

To me (IMHO), the fact that somebody put these into the dictionary gives them only a cheap, superfluous veneer of legitimacy.

Go ahead, use 'irregardless' in both your writing and speaking, and then stand back and wait for that look of respect in the eyes of your audience. Keep waiting...

Perhaps review my initial post on the word:

Anybody who says or writes 'irregardless'.

What's missing? Any reference as to whether it is regarded as a 'real' word or not.

 

[Hypoxia]

Are or should dictionaries be descriptive or proscriptive or both or neither?

Is arguing over varied definitions more fun than exercising the words?

If we all wrote 'correctly', would not most of us be, umm, boring?

But shouldn't we mostly follow common spelling conventions?

Oh, the maze, the choices! What to do? What to do?

More coffee.

 

[SimonDoom]

Re "irregardless", Merriam-Webster treats it as a word, but it says this about it:

"Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead."

That about says it. Set aside whether it is a "word" or not, because definitional debates are not meaningful. The real question is whether it makes sense to use it, and the answer is, of course, no, because (A) the "ir" prefix contradicts and cancels out the "less" suffix, so it's inherently illogical and confusing, and (B) there is a better, shorter, clearer, noncontradictory alternative: "regardless."

You don't have to be a grammar/diction Nazi to conclude that "irregardless" should not be used.

It's like the word "utilize." It's a dopy, pretentious, pseudo-scientific, and unnecessarily long synonym for "use." There are no situations where "utilize" is better than "use", except in dialog, where you would use it to show that the speaker is a pretentious fool, or a corporate tool trying to gild a presentation to the bosses with five dollar words. It's a ridiculous, jury-rigged word (let us now ize our utils).

In response to Hypoxia's point: We don't want everyone to write the same way. But following the basic conventions of spelling, grammar, punctuation, and word choice enhances communication yet still allows for an almost infinite variety of prose styles.