08-31-2011, 08:04 AM
Why don't people know the difference between these two words? sloppy speech?
More than
Greater than
NOT THEN!
>:(
More than
Greater than
NOT THEN!
>:(
Then/than
08-31-2011, 08:58 AM
Yvonne....welcome to the dark side. The one that's been driving me crazy recently...and I've seen it a bunch: 'jell' versus 'gel'. Unless you want the entire offensive line in jheri curls, they will need to jell.
Yvonne....welcome to the dark side. The one that's been driving me crazy recently...and I've seen it a bunch: 'jell' versus 'gel'. Unless you want the entire offensive line in jheri curls, they will need to jell.
08-31-2011, 09:15 AM
I also see the reverse -- people writing "than" when they mean "then."
Sloppy speech? No, more like sloppy typing or laziness.
Whether sloppy or lazy, it's still a misspelling.
Welcome to MY world.
Sloppy speech? No, more like sloppy typing or laziness.
Whether sloppy or lazy, it's still a misspelling.
Welcome to MY world.
"To the press alone, checkered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression." ~ James Madison
I also see the reverse -- people writing "than" when they mean "then."
Sloppy speech? No, more like sloppy typing or laziness.
Whether sloppy or lazy, it's still a misspelling.
Welcome to MY world.
Sloppy speech? No, more like sloppy typing or laziness.
Whether sloppy or lazy, it's still a misspelling.
Welcome to MY world.
"To the press alone, checkered as it is with abuses, the world is indebted for all the triumphs which have been gained by reason and humanity over error and oppression." ~ James Madison
08-31-2011, 10:53 AM
Excuse me while I welcome you all to MY world. I teach 7th grade English. Then vs. Than is big, but my own personal vendetta is against incorrectly used apostrophe's. Like that one.
Please clear the field! The game is not over!
08-31-2011, 11:25 AM
(08-31-2011, 11:19 AM)garvin link Wrote:Apostraphe errors, for some reason, especially horrify me I can hardly continue reading something after I hit one.
I call many of those errors the "oh shit here comes an S" apostrophes.
08-31-2011, 12:00 PM
My personal sources of irritation:
Affect vs. effectÂ
(The simple rule is that the first is a verb, the second is a noun. Of course, there are exceptions, as a psychiatrist will describe a patient's "affect" and one can "effect" change.)
Farther vs. further
(Farther is used for physical distance, further for a metaphorical distance)
Less vs. fewer
(Look at the express line the next time you are in Safeway. Their signs are grammatically correct. Several years ago, I had noticed their signs had been painted over. It previously said, "10 items or less", and now says, "10 items or fewer". I asked the clerk when the correction occurred. He said, with irritation, that the signs in ALL of their stores had to be redone - because an elementary school teacher complained.)
Affect vs. effectÂ
(The simple rule is that the first is a verb, the second is a noun. Of course, there are exceptions, as a psychiatrist will describe a patient's "affect" and one can "effect" change.)
Farther vs. further
(Farther is used for physical distance, further for a metaphorical distance)
Less vs. fewer
(Look at the express line the next time you are in Safeway. Their signs are grammatically correct. Several years ago, I had noticed their signs had been painted over. It previously said, "10 items or less", and now says, "10 items or fewer". I asked the clerk when the correction occurred. He said, with irritation, that the signs in ALL of their stores had to be redone - because an elementary school teacher complained.)
My personal sources of irritation:
Affect vs. effectÂ
(The simple rule is that the first is a verb, the second is a noun. Of course, there are exceptions, as a psychiatrist will describe a patient's "affect" and one can "effect" change.)
Farther vs. further
(Farther is used for physical distance, further for a metaphorical distance)
Less vs. fewer
(Look at the express line the next time you are in Safeway. Their signs are grammatically correct. Several years ago, I had noticed their signs had been painted over. It previously said, "10 items or less", and now says, "10 items or fewer". I asked the clerk when the correction occurred. He said, with irritation, that the signs in ALL of their stores had to be redone - because an elementary school teacher complained.)
Affect vs. effectÂ
(The simple rule is that the first is a verb, the second is a noun. Of course, there are exceptions, as a psychiatrist will describe a patient's "affect" and one can "effect" change.)
Farther vs. further
(Farther is used for physical distance, further for a metaphorical distance)
Less vs. fewer
(Look at the express line the next time you are in Safeway. Their signs are grammatically correct. Several years ago, I had noticed their signs had been painted over. It previously said, "10 items or less", and now says, "10 items or fewer". I asked the clerk when the correction occurred. He said, with irritation, that the signs in ALL of their stores had to be redone - because an elementary school teacher complained.)
08-31-2011, 12:08 PM
Here's another that's popping up with increasing frequency and making my head spin: "unchartered" means lacking a charter; "uncharted" means unmapped, unknown and therefore, undiscernable.
Here's another that's popping up with increasing frequency and making my head spin: "unchartered" means lacking a charter; "uncharted" means unmapped, unknown and therefore, undiscernable.
08-31-2011, 12:15 PM
(08-31-2011, 12:00 PM)Embo link Wrote:Less vs. fewer
(Look at the express line the next time you are in Safeway. Their signs are grammatically correct. Several years ago, I had noticed their signs had been painted over. It previously said, "10 items or less", and now says, "10 items or fewer". I asked the clerk when the correction occurred. He said, with irritation, that the signs in ALL of their stores had to be redone - because an elementary school teacher complained.)
There's the related number and amount. Number is for things that can be counted. Amount should be used only for things that must be measured.
(08-31-2011, 12:00 PM)Embo link Wrote:Less vs. fewer
(Look at the express line the next time you are in Safeway. Their signs are grammatically correct. Several years ago, I had noticed their signs had been painted over. It previously said, "10 items or less", and now says, "10 items or fewer". I asked the clerk when the correction occurred. He said, with irritation, that the signs in ALL of their stores had to be redone - because an elementary school teacher complained.)
There's the related number and amount. Number is for things that can be counted. Amount should be used only for things that must be measured.
08-31-2011, 12:19 PM
Affect/Effect, Further/Farther, and Less/Fewer all make me crazy. But here's a sports-related issue. Suppose you've got a hitter who's in a prolonged slump. The announcer might say something like, "This guy can't seem to get on track." The next night a different announcer might say, "This guy can't seem to get untracked." First, there's the obvious problem that these two phrases have the exact opposite meaning but are used interchangeably. Second, there's this. Why would you ever want to get untracked? Wouldn't that lead to a crash? Makes me crazy.
Please clear the field! The game is not over!
Affect/Effect, Further/Farther, and Less/Fewer all make me crazy. But here's a sports-related issue. Suppose you've got a hitter who's in a prolonged slump. The announcer might say something like, "This guy can't seem to get on track." The next night a different announcer might say, "This guy can't seem to get untracked." First, there's the obvious problem that these two phrases have the exact opposite meaning but are used interchangeably. Second, there's this. Why would you ever want to get untracked? Wouldn't that lead to a crash? Makes me crazy.
Please clear the field! The game is not over!
08-31-2011, 12:25 PM
The one that gets me, and that people who I think should know better confuse a lot, is "comprise" vs. "compose." If what I learned is correct, it's never right to say "this group is comprised of x, y and z." It is composed of x, y and z (or to put it the other way, x, y and z compose this group). To the knowledgeable ones here -- is that right? What I was told is that comprise means include. So something is not going to "be included of" x, y and z.
The other one that otherwise well-spoken people tend to use is saying "whom" "whomever" when they should use "who" or "whoever." Seems to happen when a subordinate clause has "whoever" as the subject, but the clause as a whole is an object. Actually, my first sentence has an example of that...
This is all the result of a misspent youth which featured a seventh grade filled with diagramming sentences. :P
The other one that otherwise well-spoken people tend to use is saying "whom" "whomever" when they should use "who" or "whoever." Seems to happen when a subordinate clause has "whoever" as the subject, but the clause as a whole is an object. Actually, my first sentence has an example of that...
This is all the result of a misspent youth which featured a seventh grade filled with diagramming sentences. :P
The one that gets me, and that people who I think should know better confuse a lot, is "comprise" vs. "compose." If what I learned is correct, it's never right to say "this group is comprised of x, y and z." It is composed of x, y and z (or to put it the other way, x, y and z compose this group). To the knowledgeable ones here -- is that right? What I was told is that comprise means include. So something is not going to "be included of" x, y and z.
The other one that otherwise well-spoken people tend to use is saying "whom" "whomever" when they should use "who" or "whoever." Seems to happen when a subordinate clause has "whoever" as the subject, but the clause as a whole is an object. Actually, my first sentence has an example of that...
This is all the result of a misspent youth which featured a seventh grade filled with diagramming sentences. :P
The other one that otherwise well-spoken people tend to use is saying "whom" "whomever" when they should use "who" or "whoever." Seems to happen when a subordinate clause has "whoever" as the subject, but the clause as a whole is an object. Actually, my first sentence has an example of that...
This is all the result of a misspent youth which featured a seventh grade filled with diagramming sentences. :P
08-31-2011, 12:51 PM
(08-31-2011, 12:25 PM)Nan3cy link Wrote:The one that gets me, and that people who I think should know better confuse a lot, is "comprise" vs. "compose." If what I learned is correct, it's never right to say "this group is comprised of x, y and z." It is composed of x, y and z (or to put it the other way, x, y and z compose this group). To the knowledgeable ones here -- is that right? What I was told is that comprise means include. So something is not going to "be included of" x, y and z.
This one gets me too. "Comprise" has been a vogue word for a few years, and I almost always hear it used incorrectly. Really, there is little or no reason ever to use the word -- "is composed of" and "consists of" are more familiar phrases that both mean the same thing as "comprises" and are not much longer.
The misuse seems to be getting worse. Not only do I hear "is comprised of" where "is composed of" would be correct., but I've also started hearing people say or write "comprises of" where "consists of" (or simply "comprises"!) would be correct.
(08-31-2011, 12:25 PM)Nan3cy link Wrote:The one that gets me, and that people who I think should know better confuse a lot, is "comprise" vs. "compose." If what I learned is correct, it's never right to say "this group is comprised of x, y and z." It is composed of x, y and z (or to put it the other way, x, y and z compose this group). To the knowledgeable ones here -- is that right? What I was told is that comprise means include. So something is not going to "be included of" x, y and z.
This one gets me too. "Comprise" has been a vogue word for a few years, and I almost always hear it used incorrectly. Really, there is little or no reason ever to use the word -- "is composed of" and "consists of" are more familiar phrases that both mean the same thing as "comprises" and are not much longer.
The misuse seems to be getting worse. Not only do I hear "is comprised of" where "is composed of" would be correct., but I've also started hearing people say or write "comprises of" where "consists of" (or simply "comprises"!) would be correct.
Pastor
Unregistered
Unregistered
08-31-2011, 02:03 PM
I hate it when people confuse them and me. People so often talk about themselves rather than talking about me. :(
I hate it when people confuse them and me. People so often talk about themselves rather than talking about me. :(
08-31-2011, 02:38 PM
As I read this thread, I found myself thinking: I could care less! Oh, wait a minute...
P.S. Forgive me. Having lurked on this Board for several years now, this is my first post. Pretty sad, I guess...
P.S. Forgive me. Having lurked on this Board for several years now, this is my first post. Pretty sad, I guess...
08-31-2011, 02:52 PM
When did "loose" become a substitute for "lose"? Like nails-on-a-blackboard for me.
Loose as a verb means to unleash, detach, set free. I don't think that is what people mean when they loose their car keys or loose their mind.
Loose as a verb means to unleash, detach, set free. I don't think that is what people mean when they loose their car keys or loose their mind.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
When did "loose" become a substitute for "lose"? Like nails-on-a-blackboard for me.
Loose as a verb means to unleash, detach, set free. I don't think that is what people mean when they loose their car keys or loose their mind.
Loose as a verb means to unleash, detach, set free. I don't think that is what people mean when they loose their car keys or loose their mind.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
08-31-2011, 03:06 PM
(08-31-2011, 12:51 PM)CompSci87 link Wrote:This one gets me too. "Comprise" has been a vogue word for a few years, and I almost always hear it used incorrectly. Really, there is little or no reason ever to use the word -- "is composed of" and "consists of" are more familiar phrases that both mean the same thing as "comprises" and are not much longer.
The misuse seems to be getting worse. Not only do I hear "is comprised of" where "is composed of" would be correct., but I've also started hearing people say or write "comprises of" where "consists of" (or simply "comprises"!) would be correct.
There is at least one use for "comprise" according to Wikipedia:
For instance, the word "comprises", when used in the claims of a United States patent, means "consists at least of". By contrast, the word "consists" means "consists only of", which may lead to a very different scope of protection.
(08-31-2011, 12:51 PM)CompSci87 link Wrote:This one gets me too. "Comprise" has been a vogue word for a few years, and I almost always hear it used incorrectly. Really, there is little or no reason ever to use the word -- "is composed of" and "consists of" are more familiar phrases that both mean the same thing as "comprises" and are not much longer.
The misuse seems to be getting worse. Not only do I hear "is comprised of" where "is composed of" would be correct., but I've also started hearing people say or write "comprises of" where "consists of" (or simply "comprises"!) would be correct.
There is at least one use for "comprise" according to Wikipedia:
For instance, the word "comprises", when used in the claims of a United States patent, means "consists at least of". By contrast, the word "consists" means "consists only of", which may lead to a very different scope of protection.
08-31-2011, 03:37 PM
Uh oh... I hope my attempt at humor wasn't too obscure. I actually thought this was a rather amusing thread and tried to add my own pet peeve. No needling intended.. Honest.Â
Ribbit...
P.S. As Herb Caen (I think) said: I had a pet peeve once, until it got eaten by my Giant Slalom.
P.P.S. Hey...this posting stuff is fun! I could waste a lot of time at work doing this... :D
Ribbit...
P.S. As Herb Caen (I think) said: I had a pet peeve once, until it got eaten by my Giant Slalom.
P.P.S. Hey...this posting stuff is fun! I could waste a lot of time at work doing this... :D
Uh oh... I hope my attempt at humor wasn't too obscure. I actually thought this was a rather amusing thread and tried to add my own pet peeve. No needling intended.. Honest.Â
Ribbit...
P.S. As Herb Caen (I think) said: I had a pet peeve once, until it got eaten by my Giant Slalom.
P.P.S. Hey...this posting stuff is fun! I could waste a lot of time at work doing this... :D
Ribbit...
P.S. As Herb Caen (I think) said: I had a pet peeve once, until it got eaten by my Giant Slalom.
P.P.S. Hey...this posting stuff is fun! I could waste a lot of time at work doing this... :D
08-31-2011, 04:12 PM
(08-31-2011, 03:37 PM)76lsjumb link Wrote:P.P.S. Hey...this posting stuff is fun! I could waste a lot of time at work doing this... :D
Just wait until football season starts...! :)
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »