Rarely Confused Words, Sort Of…
| Usually Intended | Often Mistaken | |
| Disdain – To hold in contempt | Distain – To stain or tarnish | |
| Distain is so rarely appropriate these days that it’s almost certainly a mistake, unless you’re still living in the Eighteenth Century, but most so-called ‘spelling checkers’ allow it. | ||
| Whose – The possessive of ‘Who’ | Who’s – A contraction for ‘Who is’ | |
| There are exactly zero possessives of the common pronouns formed with apostrophe ‘S’ in English, but most so-called ‘spelling checkers’ either allow or encourage the confusion. | ||
| Compliment | Complement | |
| When one says something nice about another person one ‘compliments’ them. | ||
| When things go well together they complement (or complete) each other. | ||
| We have a full complement of baseball players. | ||
| Our latest acquisition, the Biltmore in New York, complements our chain of hotel properties. | ||
| The easiest way to distinguish the two is usually one of agency. | ||
Feel free to add your own pet peeves…
Comments
I don't know about rarely,
but there are NUMEROUS words that are misused on a regular basis.
Waist or waste. The first is your middle, the second is trash.
Break(s) or brake(s) The first is something broken, the second is something that stops your car.
(PET PEEVE FOLLOWS)
Ravage or ravish. The first is to destroy, the second is to denote passionate attention as in when one is making love.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
I won't even go after: to, too, two. It's too easy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Heal or heel. The first is to help someone's health get improved. The second is to make one's legs LOOK better. LOL You DO the first, you WEAR the second.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
" that mark must precede or follow any spoken dialog. At the end, it comes AFTER the punctuation mark ( ." ," !" ?" etcetera) at the end of a spoken sentence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Too often, apostrophes are forgotten. They are vital. IE: Can't, won't, shouldn't, and so forth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
College and collage. The first is advanced schooling. The second is a design of various items in art.
My brain is fried right now, but there are MANY, MANY words either misspelled, misused or confused one for another. I just can't think of any more right now.
Catherine Linda Michel
As a T-woman, I do have a Y chromosome... it's just in cursive, pink script.
A word, about words...
Keep in mind word usage and language changes over time. For example, Old English is far different than modern English.
The question then becomes, how often does a word have to be misused, until that word becomes considered to be properly used?
In some cases, even official dictionaries on cannot agree on certain word usage.
A good rule of thumb is if it sounds right, and it falls under the "gray area" of the issue. Such as, "whose" or "who's", over "who is", I prefer "whose", then use that word.
Gray areas
Sorry to dispute your example but there is no gray area in the use of whose and who's. Who's is short for who is and whose is a possessive pronoun, there are fewer staid and strict rules in English than that one.
But on gray areas, we ran into one today: scaleable vs scalable. Both seem to be correct, depending on which dictionary or usage guide you consult. And both look wrong! :P
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
Sorry to disagree...
...but the word ‘who’ has been stripped of its declensions in so many minds that ‘whose’ and ‘who’s’ are indeed synonymous in many people’s fond imaginations. In fact, many people avoid the word ‘who‘ with an almost religious fervour, because they’re so shaky on ‘proper’ usage that they prefer to avoid putting themselves in situations where they’d have to choose one thing or t'other, so one commonly sees “The man that...” or “The man what...” or similar circumlocutions. It’s irritating for the more old-fashioned and/or literate amongst us, but there you go, as someone once said on the very brink of senility. We're just lucky that most people still remember the difference between ‘he’ and ‘his,’ or ‘she’ and ‘her,’ but fluency with these subtle nuances is by no means universal. In fact, many English-based Pidgens replace almost all such ‘possessives’ with ‘belong.’ Car belong him he red.
I’m sure that they’ll eventually go the way of the umlaut plural, now retained only in a few words such as ‘man’ and ‘men,’ or obsolescent words such as ‘kine,’ a moderately antique plural for ‘cow,’ albeit still recognisable to some, even if the history of the umlaut is forgotten.
It's import to remember as well that writers are not grammarians, but (hopefully) recorders (or imagineers) of the speech and thoughts or ordinary people. If all your characters talk like Harvard Professors of English, you’re almost bound to get the story wrong, unless of course your story happens to be set in the Harvard English Department.
-
Cheers,
Puddin'
A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style
I say,
is Cambridge considered of equal stature in English as Harvard. The Harvard dictionary not withstanding? LOL.
A.
Being wrong
Just because there are a crowd of people who are doing things wrong does not make it right; it just makes it a common error. It takes many decades, perhaps centuries, of alteration to change something this basic to English grammar, and the way grammar rules change is NOT toward greater ambiguity but toward LESS.
Who's and whose, like it's and its, or he's and his, or they're and their, or she's and hers, are different words with different meanings, and using one for the other will remain a mistake. You are probably right that eventually one or both of them will be dropped from use but that is currently NOT the case. It's not a revolution, it's just an accident.
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
Re: Let’s Rest a Spell
Here's a few more:
Allude - Elude
Arrange - Arraign
Assure - Insure
Balmy - Barmy
Cummerbund - Cumberbund
Hear - Here
Lightning - Lightening
Non - None
Shoo - Shoe
Shutter - Shudder
Sole - Soul
Waive - Wave
Weather - Whether
Dave.
Homophones
yeah, people who sound gay - not. The problems arise when people try to write a spoken language especially if they haven't been taught the pitfalls when young or rely on their computer to keep them safe - duh! Spell checkers on check spelling not appropriateness of word, if they start doing that, be careful as your computer is brighter than you are, if it's called Hal, worry.
Frequently confused homophones are things such as their, there and they're. Clearly they're not the same but they sound similar. Your and you're are other ones we get wrong regularly, and I won't mention its and it's which is confusing because of the apostrophe and writers not being clear over personal possessives and omitted letters. If the word doesn't look like there's a letter missing or could have one omitted, it might be easier to leave out the apostrophe, unless it relates to a name, such as Paul's story telling its tale, easy innit?
Angharad
two words at bc
two words misused a lot in bc stories is your and you're.
Three.
Discreet vs discrete. EVERYONE keeps making this mistake, even some of the best/most prolific authors.
It's 'discreet' in almost every case you might want to use the word. Period. 'discrete' means 'distinctly different' or 'distinctly separate'. 'Discreet' means to do something on the quiet, or in a hidden manner. (not manor)
Insure vs Ensure. To insure means you are guarding -against- something. To Ensure means you are attempting to guarantee -towards- something.
Moot. This is a HUGE pet peeve, because it's taking a word and using it against it's actual meaning. The word origin means a meeting. (Moot Hall). It means to argue or debate. The bad usage of it comes from the legal profession, where they would hold practice trials with old cases, or 'moot courts'. (courts where they were there to learn to argue cases before the bench). Non-lawyers saw this, and jumped to the stupid conclusion that 'moot' meant 'worthless', because the cases had already been in the courts. (To moot it about meant to spread the word)
--
Counter argument. Old English is _not_ that different from Modern English. Spelling is very different on many words, but we've kept word choice, word order, and grammar structure for centuries. You could throw the average Brit or American in the 600's (in Britain) and they'd probably manage to make themselves understood - at least before they were killed. Probably easier than a Liverpool lad talking to a Geordie.
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
more wierd words
You think English is easy??
Homographs are words of like spelling but with more than one meaning. A homograph that is also pronounced differently is a heteronym.
1) The bandage was wound around the wound.
2) The farm was used to produce produce.
3) The dump was so full that it had to refuse more refuse.
4) We must polish the Polish furniture..
5) He could lead if he would get the lead out.
6) The soldier decided to desert his dessert in the desert.
7) Since there is no time like the present, he thought it was time to present the present.
8) A bass was painted on the head of the bass drum.
9) When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.
10) I did not object to the object.
11) The insurance was invalid for the invalid.
12) There was a row among the oarsmen about how to row.
13) They were too close to the door to close it.
14) The buck does funny things when the does are present.
15) A seamstress and a sewer fell down into a sewer line.
16) To help with planting, the farmer taught his sow to sow.
17) The wind was too strong to wind the sail.
18) Upon seeing the tear in the painting I shed a tear.
19) I had to subject the subject to a series of tests.
20) How can I intimate this to my most intimate friend?
Let's face it - English is a crazy language. There is no egg in eggplant, nor ham in hamburger; neither apple nor pine in pineapple. English muffins weren't invented in England or French fries in France. Sweetmeats are candies while sweetbreads, which aren't sweet, are animal organs.
We take English for granted. But if we explore its paradoxes, we find that quicksand can work slowly, boxing rings are square and a guinea pig is neither from Guinea nor is it a pig.
And why is it that writers write but fingers don't fing, grocers don't groce and hammers don't ham? If the plural of tooth is teeth, why isn't the plural of booth, beeth? One goose, 2 geese. So one moose, 2 meese? One index, 2 indices? Doesn't it seem crazy that you can make amends but not one amend? If you have a bunch of odds and ends and get rid of all but one of them, what do you call it? You can have a pair of pants, but have you ever tried to by one pant.
If teachers taught, why didn't preachers praught?
If a vegetarian eats vegetables, what does a humanitarian eat?
Sometimes I think all the English speakers should be committed to an asylum for the verbally insane.
In what language do people recite at a play and play at a recital?
Ship by truck and send cargo by ship?
Have noses that run and feet that smell?
How can a slim chance and a fat chance be the same, while a wise man and a wise guy are opposites?
You have to marvel at the unique lunacy of a language
-in which your house can burn up as it burns down,
-in which you fill in a form by filling it out, and
-in which an alarm goes off by going on.
English was invented by people, not computers, and it reflects the creativity of the human race, which, of course, is not a race at all.
That is why, when the stars are out, they are visible, but when the lights are out, they are invisible.
PS. - Why doesn't 'Buick' rhyme with 'quick'?
Number 8
Why did the fish paint a guitar on his drum?
Yeah but?
How do you get dis stain out of dis dress? Just take me out and shoot me, sometimes I just can't help myself, Arecee
the one that always trips me up
is "it's" vs. "its"
never sure if I'm getting the usage right.
Actually,
That's one of the easiest constructs to get right.
If "It is" fits, it's it's. If "It is" doesn't fit, it's its.
(Basically, if you're using it to show ownership, there is no comma. That's what throws people off, because we are used to showing possessiveness with comma s.)
So "it's" is a contraction. That is its only use.
Its is a possessive.
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
It's or Its
Also what keeps blowing up the usage of this contraction is that the rule has changed on it at least once.
When I was learning basic English and word parts, "it's" was used as both a contraction of IT IS, and as a possessive.
There is also "There", "Their" and "They're".
I must compliment you
on your complement of misused words. To your list I would add:
Collage and College, I am tempted to make a collage of the stories I have read about collage students and send it off to the art department at the local college.
Crotch and crutch, crouch, couch, and a few more. What is it with the inability to spell crotch? Admittedly I see this more often in AB stories, but come on.
I must admit that affect and effect affect me, effectively making writing more difficult.
Oddly enough just recently I have been seeing weather, whether and wether misused. Very rarely are people discussing castrated sheep or goats. But it is kind of humorous for people to make decisions on what the castrated sheep are doing. What's the wether doing out there?
It doesn't help
It doesn't help that, as Winston Churchill observed, "Britain and America are two nations divided by a common language."
As in your example of crotch and crutch... It's my understanding that in the UK, crotch and crutch are synonyms. I've had occasion to lean on a crutch, but I sure wouldn't want to lean on a crotch.
This whole debate is great and one of the things that would help would be if authors wouldn't do like I do, but instead engage the use of an editor.
Even though I'm well aware of the difference between heal and heel, I still, in the heat of getting the story down type heal when I mean heel. I'm appalled when I go back and read some of my old stuff and see the misuse of homophones.
Of course as observed before, spell/grammar checkers don't help. My version of Word gets it's and its all screwed up and has a mixed bag on the examples presented here.
One that always baffles me is lead and led; as in "I was lead down the hallway..." or is it, "I was led down the hallway." ???
Hugs
Patricia
Happiness is being all dressed up and HAVING some place to go.
Semper in femineo gerunt
Ich bin eine Mann
led is past tense. Lead is
led is past tense. Lead is present tense.
"I led them down the hall" "I will lead them down the hall" "I am leading them down the hall"
(Mind you, that last one makes it sound like you're turning them into roof ornamentation as you go)
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
One or Two More...
...that have turned up a lot here:
Cubical is an adjective describing something that's six-sided and three-dimensional.
Cubicle is a noun, meaning a partitioned space serving as an office or sleeping area. (Or both, I suppose, depending on the alertness of the person in the office.)
Also, someone used its' -- I-T-S-apostrophe -- in a story here recently. No such word, in the normal scheme of things. (Obviously, any set of letters can be used as a self-reference, as in the first sentence of this paragraph. But that doesn't make it a word.)
Eric
O Rly?
A flock of sheep has lost its' wool?
:)
I love the English language!
Penny
Apostrophe still not needed.
Flock is a singular collective noun hence its is quite OK. If you were to use a plural eg ' All the sheep had lost their wool.' would be the construct.
Robi
O Rly II?
Dr. Who's phonebooth.
Jill M I (Loves Riddles)
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
Someone suggested that ...
... it should really be Dr Whom last week. Not entirely seriously I hasten to add. And it's Dr Whom's Police Phone Box btw. We don't have phone booths over here. Come to that we don't have phone boxes either now everybody has a mobile. One near us is a paperback library with no 'phone in sight; it's just packed with books for people to take and/or replenish at will. An excellent and public spirited idea IMO.
Robi
That's okay. I've been
That's okay. I've been seeing that even big comic strips make a similar mistake.
A pallet is what you use for shipping.
A palette is what you use for painting.
A pallette doesn't exist, nor does a pallete.
(The comic in question was referring to people wanting to get their own "palette" of comics from the loading dock, but the union idiot wouldn't let them, as it's against union rules)
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
Wombats
Commas are the thing. A wombat eats, roots, shoots and leaves....or was that Don Juan?
Joanne
How can you forget loose and lose?
Those are ones that are so easy to remember and yet many get wrong. At first I thought it was slapdashery or laziness, however, I have just corrected a Swiss student's homework in English and am appalled that the teacher has marked it wrong when it's right.
But the latest trend, it seems to me, is for people to not use the -ed or -d suffix to indicate the past tense.
"But he had already cross the bridge."
"I mow the lawn this morning and am now having a deserve rest."
"Could I have some scramble eggs with my bacon, please?"
I personally am not exempt from all faults, but usually they come from typing too fast.
Or from enjoying a made-up word too much (like 'slapdashery', above)
Of course, the one time I offered an author some help to eradicate these frequent mistakes, she went ballistic and slapped out a blog entry complaining about my complaining that she is illiterate. She was even boasting about having written the story in only 3 hours, and all I did was to point out that it showed.
Nope, I never said that she was illiterate, I just implied she was too damned lazy to even try to get it right and that is insulting to the readers, IMHO.
Okies
Enjoy your Sunday
Julia
Feisty
Although slightly off topic, I always smile when a girl is called feisty. The original meaning in Old English was 'full of farts'
I hope no one tells the unfortunate girl what it used to mean.
Of course this is slightly better than being called 'spunky' which in English slang means sperm.
Love to all
Anne G.
It's becoming a lost cause but ...
... I despair at the loss of 'disinterested', which means to be unbiased or independent rather than uninterested with which it often confused.
Someone mentioned crutch and crotch. In UK English a crutch is what Long John Silver used for support. A crotch is the bit between your legs that gets sore if you ride a bike or horse more than you're used to.
Robi
Apropos in more ways than one
Today's Herman:
http://www.gocomics.com/herman/2014/08/17/
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
Britishisms
It seems to me that there is a significant subset of English writers who struggle with the words sit, sat, stood, standing, and similar.
To those Brits reading this thread - am I wrong? Is it just a very tiny minority, or a large group?
"He was sat in the corner" rather than "He was sitting in the corner", or even "He sat in the corner". There are a few authors that it hurts to read, because to me, they're describing objects, rather than people.
(This isn't an attack on anyone. I'm just attempting to understand what is behind the writing style.)
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
Distinction?
In American English at least, there is a shade of meaning between "He was sat in the corner..." and "He sat in the corner." Sit is not a transitive verb, set is but you don't use set with people, so the confusion arises. "He was sat...." would seem to mean "He was made to sit..."
Not completely grammatical but the phrasing is in use and does mean something.
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
Writers, editors and 'Britishisms'
Maybe those writers who studied English at university don't have this problem but I do. As a first time fiction writer I put my mind into one of my characters to speak or describe something and the result is the language that person would use. Although I try to edit, when I post the result I just have to hope each reader can further edit my effort to create something intelligible for themselves
I have had an offer to translate my story into American English but of course the result would grate to my ear
Rhona McCloud
Ew. The only stories that
Ew. The only stories that should be converted to American English are those that are supposed to be set _in_ the US. Fixing grammar, however, isn't the same as pointing out to someone that "mum" is generally NOT used in the US. We also don't have child-minders, public schools are not private, and in general, nobody wears jumpers. :)
I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.
Can't Believe I Didn't Bring This One Up Last Time...
A school authority figure is a principal, not a principle.
Here's the usage note from dictionary.com:
Eric
(Can't resist recounting this story: in The Princess and the Plague, the author, Anistasia Allread, and her editor used the wrong form of principal in two consecutive chapters, with me (naturally) complaining in a PM each time. So the next chapter included a text conversation between Erika, the main character, and a friend -- and Erika misspelled it. I mentally chalked up a point for her side and didn't comment.)