Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Conversation >

Misspellings which make you mad.

Page: 1 2 3(4)5 6

14:48 / 29.09.04

all right vs. alright

I've thought it over and I'm going to continue to use alright. I understand that I am not using the standard form, but I want to continue to use it because in expressions such as "I'm not feeling that great, but I'm alright" it conveys the milder quality of rightness that I want. I just don't want to use the word all when talking or writing about something that's weakly or tepidly right.

I am prepared to accept my punishment.

---

I do dislike it when people use nauseous in place of the perfectly good nauseated, and normalcy instead of normality really makes me grind my teeth.

21:10 / 29.09.04

As someone who now has to change alright to all right for a living, I'm with you. I understand that it's the received form, but I have always felt that alright conveys something compeletely different to all right, and will continue to use it everywhere I can get away with it.

ONLY NICE THINGS

21:56 / 29.09.04

Just watch out for H, though. "An hippopotamus gave me an apple". "An" before H.

It's a bit more complicated than that...

Whereas "all right" is quite uncomplicated. "Alright" is wrong. And evil.

22:49 / 29.09.04

I think if one is writing casually enought to use the phrase 'all right' then it is perfectly acceptable to use the contraction 'alright'.

23:36 / 29.09.04

An an before any h that isn't properly silent sounds pretty ghastly to me. 'An hotel' indeed.
Disinterested for uninterested routinely bugs me, alhough maybe it's time to retire disinterested altogether. And 'a meteoric rise' always sounds pretty thoughtless. I also have an unreasonable aversion to exclamation marks.

The thing I have most trouble with is commas ('are commas'?). I often find myself ambivalent about whether I need one or not. Is there a set of simple rules and principles that would equip me to steer a faultless course?

Cloned Christ on a HoverDonkey

23:47 / 29.09.04

Just about the only specific rule I've assimilated is that pretty much always the word 'which' is preceded by a comma; "The putrescent corpse, which I received in the post, was a welcome surprise."

I know I use commas way too much, but that is one rule I tend to stick by.

An English teacher of mine, when I was about 13 years old, vehemently stated that the words 'and', 'but' and 'or' should never be prefixed with a comma, due to some grammatical rule that escapes me at the moment (drunk, again, as I am).

I have questioned that 'rule' ever since, as it's preyed on my mind for the last seventeen years, the brain-fuck, kid-kill, nano-hitler that she was...

03:08 / 30.09.04

"It's a bit more complicated than that..."

Please go on...

00:30 / 01.10.04

my understanding is that commas represent the place where the pause should be in the reading of the text... and as a conjunction (and, etc) will usually provide a contextual pause anyway, it would be rarely preceded by a comma. but not always, of course! when it might be confusing, a comma might precede an 'and'. but that is a pretty good rule of thumb - i always hated 'comma and' when editing texts!

so, hoverdonkey, let it prey no more... : )

[wow, nearly a freudian slip that is, on reflection, illuminating: i almost wrote 'my understanding is that comas represent...' and a coma is an extended pause, no?!!]

and another one i find i hate hate hate hate hate is people getting your and you're confused. and almost as much hate hate hate there / their / they're, though somehow it doesn't feel as bad...

and while i sympathise with mcgyver's use in speech of 'like' interspersed in speech like 'um', i hate hate hate hate it in text...

and i hate hate hate people making a noun into a verb when there is already a perfectly good verb waiting patiently to be used that is being meanwhile criminally ignored. don't ignore verbs, people! they are the action words... they'll come get us!!

[apologies to whoever above finds exclamation marks grinding]

how many of us here learnt all this as a dedicated grammar lesson in primary, or secondary, schooling?? keep the hand up if you're under thirty...

ONLY NICE THINGS

01:54 / 01.10.04

my understanding is that commas represent the place where the pause should be in the reading of the text.

Well, no. I mean, it often does, but that's not what it's for, or at least not in text designed to be written. The comma shows where a clause is being distinguished. It's about meaning, not speaking.

ONLY NICE THINGS

01:56 / 01.10.04

And exclamation points are perfectly well for exclamations. But only one per.

16:24 / 02.10.04

An English teacher of mine, when I was about 13 years old, vehemently stated that the words 'and', 'but' and 'or' should never be prefixed with a comma, due to some grammatical rule that escapes me at the moment (drunk, again, as I am).

Cloned Christ, your teacher was probably freaking out about comma splices. It's a pet peeve of many grammar teachers, as I understand it, and I believe many teachers cast an overwide net for comma splices. When you join two independent clauses with a coordinator (but, and, or), that is technically a comma splice, but an acceptable one. Joining two independent clauses without a coordinator is an unacceptable comma splice and a form of run-on sentence.

(Did I get that right?)

Cloned Christ on a HoverDonkey

21:28 / 02.10.04

Thanks, Ibis.

Due to your input I have had a quick shufti at this page and it has all been made immediately clear to me.

I now have the massive satisfaction of knowing that she was wrong-diddly-wrong-wrong.

I should have known already, really, as this was the teacher that told us that the word 'mate', when referring to a friend, was totally gramatically incorrect; a mate can only ever be someone you choose to procreate with! (I guess colloquialisms totally passed her by)

23:11 / 02.10.04

I bet she also said one should never start a sentence with "But." But "However" was, I'll also bet, acceptable. And one should never use a word in concurrent sentences as I have just used "bet." No matter how otherwise clear the meaning, one should avoid repetition. Instead, one should work one's way through synonyms as if words were sheets of toilet paper. So, the second "bet" should be "wager," the third, "gamble," and so on, until the writer's vocabulary is exhausted, and the reader suitably impressed.

20:41 / 03.10.04

Oh, Jesus. I know this really belongs in the teeth-on-edge thread but it relates to people who have used 'struggle' and 'difficulties' so often in an article they resort to fucking travails so as not to repeat themselves. There is nothing - nothing - wrong with repetition in the right context.

subcultureofone

15:12 / 05.10.04

i’ve had the experience of correcting someone’s usage or spelling only to be given an explanation that would almost make sense if it were not, well, wrong. examples:

irrevelant- when i corrected this mispronunciation to irrelevant, i was told, “no, the ‘v’ is before the ‘l’, like in ‘reveal’. like it doesn’t show anything new to the situation.”

“take another tact”- when i corrected this to “take another tack” and explained the sailing reference, the response was, “no, it’s tact, like your manners. what he did before didn’t work, so now he’s gonna act different, like with different manners.”

well. how can i argue with that? these people were college students; i have a bs, too, but it’s from the 80’s so how could i possibly know anything today?

and for mr smoothie: And I'm working on a style guide, so I'm interested in hearing about the kinds of misspellings, misuses, malapropisms and cliches that make you reach for the Basildon Bond. So, pithy corrective memoranda are particularly welcome (and likely to be nicked for my own ends).

this was on another board i frequent. it is a collection of a co-worker’s unique vocabulary

trying to come up with definitions for the new words can be fun- volumptuous = voluptuous but lumpy?

19:30 / 05.10.04

Sequence instead of sequins is one I hear a lot, from people who should know better. I noticed yesterday that our salesmen have caught the 'irregardless' bug from our boss.

07:48 / 06.10.04

In the same vane (sic, have seen that one too), we have the classic "towing the line". Somehow, rather than standing in the precise spot and no further, they are doing some odd fishing manoeuvre.

Haus of Mystery

10:57 / 06.10.04

In the village where I grew up, the Chinese Chip shop had a sign reading 'Take-A-Way'. Didn't make me mad though 'cos their spring rolls were (and still are) the best in the world.

The ways weren't so great 'though.

12:49 / 06.10.04

Just seen another one on Wired, of all places: reign for rein and vice versa. How hard can it be?

13:06 / 06.10.04

Something that bugs me- when a customer says "Can I have this separate?". Shouldn't that be "separately"? You know, I don't even care if it's grammatically correct- customers should just shut the fuck up. I know what I'm doing. Bastards.

13:25 / 06.10.04

I am starting to think that because of common usage "you're" is going to be dropped entirely in favor of "your." I hardly even see "you're" anymore. Where were these people in 5th grade??? (praying mantis, upthread)

I thought of this, mantis, last night when I saw a TV ad for Regis Philbin's new CD (?!). The ad boldly features the hit "When Your Smiling." Why, oh why?

03:10 / 08.10.04

grammarwise: the use of the word irregardless. Heads up: it's not a word. I mean "it" is a word, but irregardless is not. spellingwise: Your/you're. really, it's just a matter of common sense

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

03:37 / 08.10.04

I wish the Times would stop saying "referendums".
And "indexes".
I'm fast becoming the office pedant.

07:33 / 08.10.04

There are some words, such as referendum and indexes, which are blatantly wrong, but because the public would think that referenda and indices were mistakes (and complain about them) it's a lot less grief to just let them stand. Sad, but tue.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

13:08 / 08.10.04

Thing is, I'm paid to write summaries of these articles, and am constantly being told that they must be written in a "high standard of English". Sow's ears, silk purses, I guess.

ONLY NICE THINGS

13:26 / 08.10.04

Referendum is actually a bit of an interesting one... referendum is either a gerund (an act of referring) or a gerundive, like agenda - a referendum is a thing needing to be referred (refero, refere), an agenda is a set of things needing to be discussed (ago, agere). So, a meeting with only one item to be discussed has an agendum, I have a hidden agenda, but the people I deal with might all have conflicting agendas.

So, you might have: "referendum" - a single act of referring an issue to the popular vote; referenda - a number of things that all need to be referred to the popular vote; or a series of referendums - a series of discrete incidences of single issues being put to the popular vote. So, you can possibly get away with both referendums and referenda, whereas stadiums, say, is a much harder sell.

Best in general, though, to deccribe more than one referendum as "plebiscites"...

Whisky Priestess

20:37 / 08.10.04

%Isn't that just a posh word for common people?%

Why oh why x3 does no-one know the difference between discreet and discrete. And why is the more obscure ete spelling that's always used for the more common "subtle" meaning?

Twarts.

20:32 / 13.10.04

"sepErated" seems to be ubiquitous on the 'Lith at the moment. No, no, no... It's sepArated.

08:36 / 21.10.04

MIDRIFF.

It's MIDRIFF, you fools, not MIDRIFT, MID-DRIFT, or any other variation.

subcultureofone

14:55 / 21.10.04

a review of the movie 'garden state' begins, 'a man, weeding himself off antidepressants... '. i think they mean 'weaning'. how would one 'weed' oneself off antidepressants? by replacing them with herbicide?

mid-drift sounds like a euphemism for 'beer belly'.

22:15 / 21.10.04

posh word for common people: plebeian, though in America you would be more likely to find it misspelt: plebian. Another favorite word of mine is the opposite: patrician.

wanders off shouting praises to the inventors of on-line dictionaries with a worshipful afterthought for the OED.

22:40 / 21.10.04

Here's one that bothered me at work today. Should it be "public schoolgirl", "public school girl", "public-schoolgirl", or "public school-girl" or what? I went with the first eventually, but it still sounds wrong to me (sounds too much like "public callbox" and doesn't seem to link the public to the school). Come on, pedants, reassure me, please.
My trusty dictionaries let me down (although they all agreed on "schoolgirl" as non-hyphenated) and Google searches brought up expectedly NSFW resources.

Cloned Christ on a HoverDonkey

23:19 / 21.10.04

I think, personally, that 'public schoolgirl' is correct.

I mean, she's a schoolgirl, but she's a public one, hence: public schoolgirl.

I see where the fact that she's from public school confuses the matter, but I will still stoically stick by my answer above.

ONLY NICE THINGS

23:34 / 21.10.04

I would imagine "public school girl"; although "schoolgirl" is usually one word unhyphenated, as you found comprehensibility goes against "public schoolgirl" - it makes it unclear what you mean, by suggesting "schoolgirl who is public", not "girl who is from public school". The fact that she is a schoolgirl is communicated by context.

02:15 / 22.10.04

Cube:

I've always respected your ideas in the past, and I dare say I will do in the future, but today, now, present... you've totally lost me.

THEY GO TO THOSE SCHOOLS BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BE PUNISHED, damnit,

Page: 1 2 3(4)5 6