Results 1 - 10 of about 2,470,000 for masterbation. (0.14 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,130,000 for dissapointed. (0.37 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 498,000 for irregardless
― Slavoj Zizek's lingerie model wife, Tuesday, 10 January 2006 11:06 (eighteen years ago) link
― Heavo Ho, Tuesday, 10 January 2006 11:08 (eighteen years ago) link
― Forest Pines (ForestPines), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 11:09 (eighteen years ago) link
Or maybe half of them are just typos.
― Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 11:13 (eighteen years ago) link
― slavoj zizek's lingerie model wife, Tuesday, 10 January 2006 11:17 (eighteen years ago) link
― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 11:26 (eighteen years ago) link
I don't know why, but this particular common mis-spelling, above all others I can think of apart from maybe "seperate", makes my skin crawl and makes me want to throw a fucking great dictionary at the culprit. JUST LEARN THE FUCKING SPELLING!
Actually, let me try something...
yeah, might have bloody known:
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,760,000 for "should of". (0.82 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 142,000,000 for "should have". (0.93 seconds)
actually, that's a slightly less depressing ratio than the "definately" one.
― CharlieNo4 (Charlie), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 11:36 (eighteen years ago) link
er, never?
If spelling is basically use
if monkeys are basically dolphins. if cheese is basically fish. if logic is basically fucked. etc.
enrique OTM. millions would bring back capital punishment. are you really suggesting that existing orthographical rules should be changed because a few ppl can't type propprl,yy oNn the internets?
― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 11:37 (eighteen years ago) link
― Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 11:39 (eighteen years ago) link
― Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 11:40 (eighteen years ago) link
(x-post)
― Tuomas (Tuomas), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 11:41 (eighteen years ago) link
people be morans.
― emsk ( emsk), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 11:42 (eighteen years ago) link
the scholar says "the world is sound"the sceptic questions that
the scholar says "the sceptic's wrong"the sceptic calls him "fool"
how easily they could get alongif scholars just skipped school
― CharlieNo4 (Charlie), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 11:43 (eighteen years ago) link
― emsk ( emsk), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 11:45 (eighteen years ago) link
GET ONE DICTIONARY
― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 11:46 (eighteen years ago) link
Your not wrong their
― Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 11:46 (eighteen years ago) link
Ho ho ho...
― Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 11:52 (eighteen years ago) link
― CharlieNo4 (Charlie), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 12:00 (eighteen years ago) link
Well, spelling is basically use. We don't have an academy handing down 'correct' spellings to the masses like the French. Sure, there are dictionaries, lots of different ones, none with any sort of 'official' authority. Some prefer American spellings, some even prefer Australian variations.
Spelling changes. If you don't believe me, go look at the original folio editions of Shakespeare for examples. Spellings have changed not because any authority deemed that they be changed but because of USE. Just as in the same way meanings change with time. So I wouldn't be at all suprised to find the OED or whatever listing 'definately' as an alternate spelling in 10 or 20 years' time.
Actually, 'masterbation' is a more egregious example. It scores 2.5 million, whereas the 'correct' spelling gets around 8 million. A quarter of the population thinks it's spelt with an 'e'.
By the way, here is a photo of me:
http://static.flickr.com/8/7324349_cdc73b081f_o.jpg
― Slavoj Zizek's lingerie model wife, Tuesday, 10 January 2006 12:01 (eighteen years ago) link
uh-huh.
― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 12:03 (eighteen years ago) link
True, but none of them lists "definately" YET! And it offends me sufficiently - borne of pure laziness and ignorance as it is - that I'm prepared to fight for its continuing exclusion by the power of edumacation...
― CharlieNo4 (Charlie), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 12:07 (eighteen years ago) link
― Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 12:11 (eighteen years ago) link
― 2 columbus circle in 1964 (Jody Beth Rosen), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 12:13 (eighteen years ago) link
okay. i bet you 50 pounds sterling that in 20 years' time, "definately" will not be listed by the OED as an alternate spelling. deal?
― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 12:18 (eighteen years ago) link
1) that's 50 pounds sterling in 2026 (so the equivalent of about 26 pence today, i guess).
2) actually, i'd bet another 50 pounds sterling that, er, sterling won't exist by then. but "definitely" will still definitely be the only spelling.
― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 12:20 (eighteen years ago) link
― 2 columbus circle in 1964 (Jody Beth Rosen), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 12:21 (eighteen years ago) link
― Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 12:22 (eighteen years ago) link
Not too sure. But there's an Australian English spellchecker on my version of Word.
i'm not going to accept "definate" as a spelling until people start spelling "finite" as "finate" as well.
The "derivation as authenticity marker" fallacy. I suppose you won't allow 'discomfit' unless people start spelling 'comfort' as 'comfit'.
Here are some more photos of me:
http://www.sitiosargentina.com.ar/fotos/mujeres/fotos/analia_hounie_01-ch.jpg
http://www.sitiosargentina.com.ar/fotos/mujeres/fotos/analia_hounie_03-ch.jpg
― Slavoj Zizek's linergie model wife, Tuesday, 10 January 2006 12:26 (eighteen years ago) link
since any instances of "should of" in a passage, should of course be wrong.
― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 12:27 (eighteen years ago) link
― Excelsior Syndrum (noodle vague), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 12:31 (eighteen years ago) link
― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 12:31 (eighteen years ago) link
― 2 columbus circle in 1964 (Jody Beth Rosen), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 12:35 (eighteen years ago) link
― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 12:37 (eighteen years ago) link
― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 12:49 (eighteen years ago) link
― jz, Tuesday, 10 January 2006 12:52 (eighteen years ago) link
― CharlieNo4 (Charlie), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 12:57 (eighteen years ago) link
Can someone tell me an English word that's been so misspelt in say, the last century, that it's now listed as an alternative spelling?
― Alba (Alba), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 13:51 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alba (Alba), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 13:52 (eighteen years ago) link
― ken c (ken c), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 13:53 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alba (Alba), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 13:53 (eighteen years ago) link
― jz, Tuesday, 10 January 2006 14:02 (eighteen years ago) link
― Ronan (Ronan), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 14:06 (eighteen years ago) link
Definately, but again, that's a slightly different thing. No one exactly calls you a moran if you run together a phrase that's usually two words.
― Alba (Alba), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 14:07 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alba (Alba), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 14:08 (eighteen years ago) link
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 14:15 (eighteen years ago) link
― Alba (Alba), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 14:26 (eighteen years ago) link
― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 14:26 (eighteen years ago) link
― Archel (Archel), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 14:30 (eighteen years ago) link
― beanz (beanz), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 14:40 (eighteen years ago) link
― ambrose (ambrose), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 23:39 (eighteen years ago) link
― 2 columbus circle in 1964 (Jody Beth Rosen), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 23:44 (eighteen years ago) link
― 2 columbus circle in 1964 (Jody Beth Rosen), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 23:45 (eighteen years ago) link
"busses" is the plural of buss, non? as in those things on a recording studio desk?
― jim p. irrelevant (electricsound), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 23:50 (eighteen years ago) link
Bugs the crap out of me. I'd be pretty amused if some rich crazy pedant out there started tracking this stuff down and suing over it.
― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 23:52 (eighteen years ago) link
that's like "traveling"/"travelling." i prefer the US spelling (one l) because it makes sense that the verb "travel" would take the gerund "ing" and not "ling"). but presumably that extra l is in there for pronunciation reasons -- so we don't say "trave - ling" (where "trave" rhymes with "crave").
― 2 columbus circle in 1964 (Jody Beth Rosen), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 23:55 (eighteen years ago) link
― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 23:57 (eighteen years ago) link
― Laurel (Laurel), Wednesday, 11 January 2006 00:01 (eighteen years ago) link
But those things on an audio desk are spelled "bus" as well.
― phil d. (Phil D.), Wednesday, 11 January 2006 00:06 (eighteen years ago) link
― jim p. irrelevant (electricsound), Wednesday, 11 January 2006 00:09 (eighteen years ago) link
― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 11 January 2006 00:14 (eighteen years ago) link
x-post I do know that that should have been "By whom," though.
― phil d. (Phil D.), Wednesday, 11 January 2006 00:18 (eighteen years ago) link
― jim p. irrelevant (electricsound), Wednesday, 11 January 2006 00:19 (eighteen years ago) link
if we wanna get REALLY pedantic (too late to stop now), we can say that "travveling" would be the spelling that most closely reflected the pronunciation. "travelling" would sound like "tra - VELL - ing" (rhymes with "smelling," "harvelling").
― 2 columbus circle in 1964 (Jody Beth Rosen), Wednesday, 11 January 2006 00:19 (eighteen years ago) link
― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 11 January 2006 00:43 (eighteen years ago) link
Not true! bus P Pronunciation Key (bs)n. pl. bus·es or bus·ses
In the Greek tradition, the plural of bus should be bi.
― Beth Parker (Beth Parker), Wednesday, 11 January 2006 02:01 (eighteen years ago) link
"Do humans have evolved homicide modules - evolved psychologicalmechanisms specifically dedicated to killing other humans undercertain contexts?"
DAVID BUSSPsychologist at University of Texas at Austin; author of The EvolutionOf Desire.
― Beth Parker (Beth Parker), Wednesday, 11 January 2006 02:05 (eighteen years ago) link
― jim p. irrelevant (electricsound), Wednesday, 11 January 2006 02:11 (eighteen years ago) link
― cheshycat (chëshy f cat), Wednesday, 11 January 2006 02:47 (eighteen years ago) link
Oh, no, you can't talk your way out of this one. The homicide module has been activated.
― Beth Parker (Beth Parker), Wednesday, 11 January 2006 02:59 (eighteen years ago) link
― 2 columbus circle in 1964 (Jody Beth Rosen), Wednesday, 11 January 2006 04:50 (eighteen years ago) link
So my fit of pique had long passed by the time I got home last night, and I realized that when I read over the eggcorns, I somehow imagine them in a worst-possible scenario -- not as natural mistakes during light conversation, which is surely where most of them fall, but as an attempt by a speaker to intimidate & browbeat an audience, to further the speaker's agenda. Yes, I realize this is a silly jump to make, but it took a friend to point out that I was probably remembering someone in particular I used to deal with, someone whose offenses ranged from "fustrated" to confusing "respectful" with "respectable" and a belief that the word "magnanimous" had something to do with the size of an object (was she confusing it with "magnitude"? I'll never know.). Anyway. Blergh.
― Laurel (Laurel), Wednesday, 11 January 2006 14:26 (eighteen years ago) link
it is now 'different to'
Results 1 - 10 of about 7,540,000 for "different to"Results 1 - 10 of about 98,200,000 for "different from"
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 11 January 2006 14:46 (eighteen years ago) link
― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 11 January 2006 14:49 (eighteen years ago) link
i think i've found a retirement vocation to which i can look forward.
― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Wednesday, 11 January 2006 14:54 (eighteen years ago) link
― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 11 January 2006 15:01 (eighteen years ago) link
― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 11 January 2006 15:16 (eighteen years ago) link
i think theres a split here in terms of those that deal with words professionally, considering ILX is a haven of journos/editors etc etc, to whom ambiguity and confusion, non-standard use in spelling grammar etc is an irritation and an obstacle to their work, and those that simply take an interest and in my case a certain delight, in the way people change and fiddle with the language, consciously or unconsciously, through spelling mistakes, folk etymologies, derivations etc.
for instance, in a meeting today someone came up with "inminutisimal", which i presume came from infinitesimal. he paused just before it, which suggested either that he was trying to remember the word or get his tongue round, or that he wanted to say that but exaggertae the meaning even further. either way i pretty much love stuff like that.
― ambrose (ambrose), Wednesday, 11 January 2006 15:23 (eighteen years ago) link
― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 11 January 2006 17:52 (eighteen years ago) link
― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 11 January 2006 19:23 (eighteen years ago) link
haha otm.
most language users generally aspire to whatever the "standard" is, even if they get stuff wrong. sure, language is fluid (the phrase descriptivists always trot out, ad nauseam), but if it were THAT fluid, no one would ever understand anyone else.
― 2 columbus circle in 1964 (Jody Beth Rosen), Wednesday, 11 January 2006 19:32 (eighteen years ago) link
― nabisco (nabisco), Wednesday, 11 January 2006 19:53 (eighteen years ago) link
― Confounded (Confounded), Wednesday, 11 January 2006 20:19 (eighteen years ago) link
So, grammarians:"There are a lot of..." vs "There's a lot of..."
I just realized where the confusion came from (and why Alba and I answered different ways at first). We actually decide singular/plural based on the thing there's a lot of, and whether it's a group of individual items or a numberless abstract. For instance --
A lot of us ARE going to the movie tonight.A lot of that movie IS just an ape fighting a dinosaur.
So yeah, singular/plural not based on "a lot" but on the thing it's attached to -- a lot of people ARE, a lot of the public IS.
― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 13 January 2006 21:34 (eighteen years ago) link
ok this is an epidemic and is seriously starting to bug me
― hope this helps (Granny Dainger), Sunday, 11 April 2010 20:53 (thirteen years ago) link
I'm sure it's gotten worse, or maybe I'm seeing it more due to facebook feeds etc. I really, really, really hate it, possibly more than "your" when it should be "you're". But perhaps not quite as much as "should of".
― Not the real Village People, Sunday, 11 April 2010 21:06 (thirteen years ago) link
hmmm
― mick signals, Monday, 22 April 2019 00:23 (four years ago) link
English is in desperate need of spelling reform. Were I a billionaire dictionary/newspaper publisher, I'd push something like Spelling Reform 1.
Draw a breth for progress,Tred abrest ahed.Fight agenst old spelling,Better "red" than "read".Spred the words at brekfast,Mesure them in bed,Dream of welth and tresure,Better "ded" than "dead"
― Insert bad pun (Sanpaku), Monday, 22 April 2019 00:36 (four years ago) link
You'll have us on the Esperanto, you crazy man!
― imago, Monday, 22 April 2019 07:09 (four years ago) link
Some new restaurant opened near me recently that advertises on its front window "Vegan and Vegitarian."
― Plinka Trinka Banga Tink (Eliza D.), Monday, 22 April 2019 13:22 (four years ago) link
They paid to have someone misspell a word on their front window.
how many people think the Canada Goose is called the Canadian Goose and shouldn't we just start calling it that when we get tired of correcting them? :-(
― StanM, Monday, 22 April 2019 13:44 (four years ago) link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XQFPBM9HkM
― Burt Bacharach's Bees (rushomancy), Monday, 22 April 2019 14:04 (four years ago) link
BENT COPPERS
― seandalai, Monday, 22 April 2019 14:33 (four years ago) link
AC-77 investigating the very top levels of bad music writing
― seandalai, Monday, 22 April 2019 14:35 (four years ago) link
Standardized orthography is good, helpful, and highly convenient. It reduces friction and speeds the deciphering of written communication. But it is not strictly necessary to comprehension. The Elizabethans and their predeccesors muddled along without it.
― A is for (Aimless), Monday, 22 April 2019 16:23 (four years ago) link
On the whole, I'm in favor of it.
― A is for (Aimless), Monday, 22 April 2019 16:24 (four years ago) link
i say we just replace all written language with emoji, standardized orthography is a half measure at best
― Burt Bacharach's Bees (rushomancy), Tuesday, 23 April 2019 00:18 (four years ago) link
I also think standardized orthography is good. I just wish English had it.
― o. nate, Tuesday, 23 April 2019 00:24 (four years ago) link
We mostly have it Finnish, there's some minor exceptions, but almost always each letter corresponds to one sound only, regardless of where it'd placed in a word. This has definitely made it easier for my wife (who's from Costa Rica) to learn how to pronounce Finnish, but I guess to balance it out, our morphology is very difficult learn, due to the system of conjugations (which are used instead of prepositions) being way different from most other European languages.
― Tuomas, Tuesday, 23 April 2019 14:15 (four years ago) link