The 10 most common grammar mistakes ?

http://channels.isp.netscape.com/news/package.jsp?name=fte/grammar/grammar

<snip>

Error No. 1: It's/its
Explanation: "It's" is a contraction for "it is." If you aren't sure whether to use "its" or "it's," read the sentence and substitute the words "it is." Does it make sense? Then "it's" is correct. If not, use "its."
Wrong: Your home and all it's contents are only protected if you lock it when you leave.
Right: Your home and all its contents are only protected if you lock it when you leave.

Error No. 2: They're/their/there
Explanation: "They're" means "they are." "Their" is a possessive pronoun just like "her," "his," or "our." All other uses are "there."
Wrong: There going on they're weekly lunch date to the restaurant over their.
Right: They're going on their weekly lunch date to the restaurant over there.

Error No. 3: Effect/affect
Explanation: "Affect" is a verb that means to have an influence upon. "Effect" is a noun.
Wrong: Gold prices have no affect on purchasing power.
Right: Gold prices have no effect on purchasing power.
Wrong: The earnings report is not expected to effect the stock price in the long-term.
Right: The earnings report is not expected to affect the stock price in the long-term.

Error No. 4: Lay/lie
Explanation: You lay down the newspaper on the kitchen table in the morning, but you lie down on the couch to watch TV at night. Here's a good way to tell them apart: If the subject of the sentence is acting on something, it's "lay." If the subject is lying down, then it's "lie." And that's no lie!
Wrong: I'm going to lay down for a nap.
Right: I'm going to lie down for a nap.

.....six more :)

Her most common mistake.

:evilgrin:

just a pet peeve of mine...

I especially like....."What a bunch of loosers."

I always see that one on sports boards.

different, and people manage to SAY them correctly -- why is this so hard to figure out? Write "lose" when you say LOOZ, and write "loose" when you say LOOS.

and he STILL makes this mistake!

it's amazing the mistake's fol's make when they do this. Alot of DU posting's are incorrect from u'sing 'so many of the little sucker's.

It goes like this -- (our surname ends in "s" so we get a lot of these.) Let's try it with fictional couple John and Jean Chambers.

Mr. John Chamber's cat is a pretty tabby.

Let's go over to Mr. John Chamber's house

The Chambers' cat is a pretty tabby.

The Chamberses cat is a pretty tabby.

The Chambers's cat is a pretty tabby.

It goes downhill from there.....

if they're supposed to be examples of incorrect usage. Either of the two below would be correct.

The Chambers' cat is a pretty tabby.
The Chambers's cat is a pretty tabby.

The first one is correct... but the second one? I think the correct form is:

The Chambers' cat is a pretty tabby.

But now I'm not sure about the second. I'm just used to getting all kinds of posts and mail that uses the possessive form. I think we even got the equivalent of:

"The Chambers'es cat is a pretty tabby" in a letter once.

That one is DEFINITELY not right!

I'll have to pay more attention to this. Right now, I'm trying to get my office straightened out and can't focus on this.

Sorry if I messed up.

in The Scott, Foresman Handbook for Writers, and according to it, I was correct in what I wanted to say, but not correct in what I technically said.



I guess that that means I can only write "The Chambers' cat is a pretty tabby." There are two reasons for this: in this context, I'm using "Chambers" as a plural noun. Also, if I said that sentence, I would not add another syllable to the name.

In jumping the gun, I was blanketing your examples with the first rule I listed in the excerpt.

I would have been OK anyway, since I don't like adding the extra 's. I think it's ugly.

as in "keeping up with the Joneses."

by Strunk and White (it's one of the BEST grammar books out there!!) says use the apostrophe and additional "s" when working with words that have an "s" on the end.

Chris's lunch
Lois's purse
The Chambers's cat

<snip>

Error No. 5: You're/your
Explanation: "You're" is the contraction for "you are," while "your" is used in all other instances.
Wrong: Your so smart to realize that you're short skirts and flip-flops aren't appropriate attire in the office.
Right: You're so smart to realize that your short skirts and flip-flops aren't appropriate attire in the office.

Error No. 6: Loose/lose
Explanation: "Loose" means something that is wobbly or baggy. "Lose" is to misplace or not be able to find something.
Wrong: Don't loose that house key.
Right: Don't lose that house key.

Error No. 7: Then/than
Explanation: If you're making a comparison, choose "than." If you're talking about time, choose "then."
Wrong: First you write and polish your resume, than you look for a job.
Right: First you write and polish your resume, then you look for a job.
Wrong: Joyce is prettier then Sarah.
Right: Joyce is prettier than Sarah.

Error No. 8: Could of/would of/should of instead of could have/would have/should have
Explanation: It may sound like "of" when you speak and slur your words together, but it's not! The correct form is always "have."
Wrong: I could of gotten into that college if I only knew the rules of grammar.
Right: I could have gotten into that college if I only knew the rules of grammar.

...more

row of my sweet old lady English teachers (they really were)from years ago, frowning disapprovingly as I type this! Sorry, ladies!

an effect causes and affect

meaning to accomplish.

Curious..

in environmental regulations.

Query: Is "President" capitalized in the example sentence or not?

but then I'm English. I'd capitalise when it seems like a title - "Gore was elected President", but not when it's a description - "the last president served 2 terms". I think 'presidency' comes in the latter category.

for example, would be capitalized, but in subsequent mentions he would be either Mr. Clinton, or just Clinton.

"That depressed person over there has a flat affect." In other words, his face shows no emotion.

Capitalize titles only when used with the name of the holder.

Correct: "President Al Gore."

Correct: "Al Gore is the president of the United States."

Incorrect*: "Al Gore was elected President."

I frequently see improper capitalization on the internets — "Doctor," "Teacher," even "High School." :shrug:



*Grammatically incorrect, that is. Factually, it's correct. But you knew that.

I probably knew all of this in junior high, but that was some time ago.

It's difficult sometimes to remember the correct rule when that rule seems to be broken constantly. I find that remembering correct grammar over the long term requires a bit of reinforcement from time to time, at least for me.

but it's only correct if the title is used as part of the name.

Dean Richard Smith
Richard Smith, dean of Jackson College

We welcomed President John Jones of Stevens Imaging, Inc.
We welcomed John Jones, president of Stevens Imaging, Inc.

Also, academic degrees aren't usually capitalized.
Miss Wilson earned a bachelor of arts degree.

or is merely changing it. When something or someone "effects" something, it (or the person) is making it happen. Putting it into effect.

Is how I always think of it.

Should have read the whole thread!

as in "hopefully, this too shall pass." Corrected: "We are hopeful this too shall pass."

It is a sentence adverb (because it modifies the sentence as a whole rather than an individual part of the sentence).

Sentence adverbs are fairly common and well-established part of the language, as in "frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" or "thankfully, an Italian player put the ball in his own goal and the U.S. secured a tie" or "interestingly, that was one of only two goals the U.S. scored in the entire World's Cup."

Strangely, few (if any) grammarians would object to other sentence adverbs, but many still object to hopefully. This is true despite the fact that (a) it is a very useful construction that has easily been absorbed by general users of the language, (b) it does not break any grammatical rules at all, and (c) it very rarely carries any potential for confusing or misleading the reader/hearer.

As with the infamous sentence-ending preposition, I tell my students that they should feel free to use "hopefully," but that they might run into people who reflexively object; and, if those people happen to hold positions of authority over their careers, then they should probably avoid it, unless they feel comfortable defending such a grammatical decision to a boss who might not like being told he/she is wrong.

Interestingly, the attack against "hopefully" is something of a cause-celebre among conservative grammarians (such as bill safire). (I'm certainly not saying you're a conservative grammarian, by the way.) I've always found that interesting. Coincidentally, the rise of "hopefully" as a commonly used word occurred at the same time as the rise of the counter-culture in the 60s. Now, I have no evidence that conservative response to "hopefully" has anything to do with the rise of the counterculture, but I've always suspected that folks like Safire hated anything new that came out of that decade, and thus focused some of their socio-political discontent on the "hip, new sentence adverb" that appeared on the scene at about the same time ;) :rofl:

:hi:

to let it go! especially if its common usage began in the 60's, my fave decade so far along with the '70s. :hippie: i will gratefully submit to transcribing "hopefully" and stop knocking my brains out trying to decide the "perfect" interpretation of the dictated sentence beginning with the offending "hopefully." muchas, muchas gracias!

bookmarking :=)

Anyway, glad you found my spiel convincing :) I'm kind of a dork about grammar, and I especially enjoy justifying what are commonly considered mistakes. I guess it's the contrarian in me. (The contrarian grammarian :rofl:--I laugh even though I know that's not grammatically correct)

because it seems imprecise about who (or is it whom?) is being hopeful, and therefore teeters on the brink of the passive voice. "I hope" seems like a much better choice. Also, I don't think "hopefully" is entirely analogous to "frankly, my dear...," which has no elegant substitute. "To be frank, my dear--I don't give a flying fuck," just doesn't have the same zing.

Just as "I am hopeful" is different from "I hope."

"Hopefully bush will be indicted" carries a different tone than "I hope bush is indicted." The American Heritage Dictionary says that the first expresses a hopeful prediction whereas the second expresses desire. And while I think that's true, I think the difference in tenor is greater than the difference in actual meaning, primarily because, as you note, hopefully is less precise. Sometimes ambiguity is a useful stylistic tool, and I think part of what makes hopefully useful is that it is less precise and less forceful than "I hope."

Frankly is similar only that it, too, is a sentence adverb. In "Frankly, my dear ..." the frankly describes the attitude of the speaker expressing the sentence, roughly equivalent to "(I say) frankly, my dear ..." The same can be said of sentences beginning with hopefully: "(I say) hopefully, that bush will be indicted." In this sense, hopefully describes how the sentence is being uttered.

Of course, if you don't like hopefully I won't hold that against you ... no reason to use it if it ain't your cup of tea :)

(edited for poor comma placement)

I hear this all the time from students in my creative writing classes (at least at the intro level): "I kind of wanted it to be ambiguous, so people could, you know, bring their own meaning to it." Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, the translation is: "I wrote this poem fifteen minutes before class and had no idea what I was trying to say or how to say it." Ambiguity sucks, I tell them. But hey, I'm a crotchety old bastard.

Thinking out loud about how "I am hopeful that Bush will be impeached" is different in meaning and/or tone from "I hope that Bush will be impeached." I guess "I am hopeful" implies a kind of guarded skepticism--I'm hopeful, but not confident. "I hope" is just the raw wish. Interesting distinction--one I hadn't thought about before.

I agree that ambiguity is often lazy. And ambiguity in that sense--"i want them to bring their own shit in to it" is definitely the sort of undergrad-covering-his-(or-her)-ass kind of thing. But there is also the notion of an ambiguity designed to create uncertainty in the reader/hearer, thus requiring the reader to think more deeply about the specific nuance--that's more what I was thinking. I probably should have just used the word nuance to describe this in the first place, but (lazy me :rofl:) I just went with ambiguity.

Anyway, :toast: to a fellow writing instructor (though I teach business/rhetorical writing rather than creative ...)

We labor long and hard in this vineyard, you and I, for precious little wine.

Amazing many of the culprits seem to be fairly well educated, which is more than a little scary. has the curriculum in the schools really been that diluted over the years? I readily admit I didn't pay that much attention to the subjects I didn't like, which was everything with a nonscientific or historic/social sciences bent.

i do medical transcription for doctors - it's astonishing how they mangle the English language. just finished a report in which the doctor said, "She has underwent....."

and once had occasion to typeset a cookbook where the term to "whet one's appetite" was misspelled ("wet") on the copy. I corrected it, but they wanted it changed it back to "wet." Even educators refuse to look things up. It's so disheartening to have to misspell words knowing they're wrong and having to see them in print.

I tend to pound myself for making grammar and spelling errors. I never realized that i.e. meant "that is". And I'm 47.

Thanks Kentuck! :hi:

actually these are somewhat interchangeable as they apply to freepers, however - there is a slight difference

"moran" is used for a freeper to describe himself - "I am such a moran"

"moron" is used for others to describe freepers, as in - "he is such a moron"

As in, this chotchke we're selling will compliment any decor. Haha! I always picture an exceedingly gracious inanimate object entering a room and attempting to win over the sofas and chairs with flattery. People really shouldn't use words they aren't sure how to spell.

So are lose/loose. And led/lead, which a lot of people are confusing lately. These are exactly the situations you can't rely on Spellchecker for.

Maybe I will now. :P

Farther refers to physical distance..........."I can hit hit the baseball farther than you"

Further refers to, well duh, non physical distance....."Let me think about it further"

It's that easy!

P.S. Fuc* the republicans. (I think that's grammatically correct, isn't it??!) :bounce:

I always pause before using "further/farther" cuz I find it so annoying when they are misused. It's also very annoying when folks say things like "We'll need less people when this project is completed." or "The prisoner hung himself."

Should be "Tastes great, FEWER calories".

The results were appalling. I think you're right about it originating with beer commercials and probably diet soda as well. This page has correct usage in the article but also has the error in a sidebar:
http://www.wkrc.com/guides/health/special/story.aspx?content_id=63E658E5-C8F8-4265-B030-D30774951C75

"...as far as new proposals are concerned."

It's like an un-frosted cake.

I always think of grammar as covering stuff like sentence structure and punctuation and verb form while diction covers the choice of words or the pronunciation of them in speech. I seem to recall that distinction from school but it may have been muddled by the introduction of "grammar checking" software which includes both.

Mechanics, usage, grammar, spelling

I think "usage" is the same as what you're calling "diction," while grammar, as you say, is more about subject-verb agreement and so on.

That's probably because of Barzun's Modern American Usage, which is concerned with both. That said, I'm not going to quibble because that's a really good mnemonic and I wouldn't want to ruin it. :D

I really don't think the folks at that website are qualified to define "dumb," though. I believe these people are part of the AOL organization, not a group I associate with "bright."

A grammatical error that annoys me, but is not listed is the misplaced modifier. An example would be "The President who failed at Harken Energy that was put in office through election fraud, also failed in the White House."

This sentence could be construed to read that Harken Energy was put in the White House.

Sometimes it's a matter of a brain-glitch rather than knowledge.

here and on any other board types "ect." instead of "etc.".

The word is etcetera and the proper abbreviation is etc.

also.


And I've heard this time and again.

Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir– prefix and –less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.

Which points out a peeve of my own — too many keyboards without space bars. :hi:

Should be "ad nauseam."

Then we get into "nauseous." (an adverb)
"I feel nauseous," should be I feel nauseated."

Is the usage of "their" for one person whose gender is unknown. Newsflash, everyone: "their" is a PLURAL pronoun. Got it? One person, whether HIS/HER gender is known or not, is NEVER plural. Use "his/her" to be politically correct, or even just "his" or "her" if you want to assume genders--anything is better than that gawdawful "And so the person moved their luggage over there."

Also, "everyone," "no one," etc. are SINGLE-person pronouns. Do NOT say "Everyone knows their place." Say "Everyone knows his place" or "Everyone knows her place" or "Everyone knows his/her place."

:grr:

eliminate the sexism in our language, IMO, so I let this one pass, even though I tend to be a bit of a grammar nazi.

Just put "his/her."

:grr:

:D

Partly from a gender standpoint, but mostly because it's frequently simply too clumsy to use "his/her."

I think this is one case where "language evolves" is legitimate.

But writing--especially formal writing--should NEVER employ "their" in this context.

But I think most often in terms of journalism, which is a different animal.

I try to rework the sentence to avoid the problem, but it's not always possible.

And none of this is to say that I never make many of the mistakes mentioned in this thread, either! No one is perfect all the time, right?

;)

predates the drive towards gender-neutral language, and it became quite popular in the 1800s. (George Bernard Shaw, whose linguistic philosophy was far from revolutionary, provides a few examples.) The use of the plural "they" goes back hundreds of years before that, even. But while it is extremely common to use the plural "they" or "them" with a single noun ("if you love someone set them free"), "their" often sounds more awkward than "they" or "them."

Personally, I don't like it when it sounds forced (as in the examples that you gave), but other times when it sounds natural and carries no chance of confusion it doesn't bother me much (as in, say "someone left their keys at the counter.")

It just isn't politically correct.

English appears to have a masculine bias linguistically, in that unknown gender defaults to the masculine. But there are exceptions to this rule. A cat of unknown sex often defaults to the feminine; kitties are presumed female.

Examples:
"Each person must bring his own beverage."
but...
"Each cat must have her flea collar on before she can go out."

It seems that most people will write or say, "Frank is taller than me."

This is related to missing verbs because a verb is implied at the end of the sentence. Once the verb is added, it's easy to see the error here. "Frank is taller than I (am)."

Here's an interesting version in which either word is correct, but which one is used changes the meaning of the sentence.

John loves Mary more than me.
John loves Mary more than I.

is an elliptical adverbial clause, so it's not incorrect.

I wasn't saying that "Frank is taller than I" was incorrect. I was pointing out why "Frank is taller than me" is.

I missed that. :hi:

I'm glad we got that sorted out. :D

:hi:

I can't figure out why people can't tell the difference. You've this: "-", which is a hyphen and belongs in a compound word such as, "Those hyphen-challenged folks make me want to scream." You can also have multiple compound words as well, such as the following: "These dash-and-hyphen-challenged folks sure do need a few lessons in punctuation."

Another problem with hyphens is that people don't even use them at all anymore. You get sentences like, "That horse faced Freeper gives me the willy nillies." It should be this: "That horse-faced Freeper gives me the willy-nillies."

Then you have the dash, which in a pinch can be Two hyphens, but honestly it's better to use the code to make a Real dash — hold down alt+0151 (sorry Mac users, I just don't know how to do it on your computers). A dash is a good replacement for almost all other types of punctuation — semi-colons, colons, commas, even full stops in some cases. So, if you can't figure out which punctuation you need, just use the handy-dandy little dash.

"emdash"

:P

:D

As opposed to an en dash? :hi:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/emdash

:hi:

Not necessarily what's proper. :hi:

;)

I'm just really anal about language. :crazy:

that "proven" is not a word? It is "proved", apparently.

Now they tell me.

"Different than" is perfectly acceptable in American English when than serves as a conjunction between two subject clauses, though it is not in favor as a preposition (taking an object). In other words, you would say "different from" if you connect the point of comparison to an object (you are different from me), but when connecting subjects in clauses it's okay to use different than (you are different than I am).

Further, the second clause is often elliptical, so that it doesn't even have to be complete: Grammar rules today are different than when he went to school. Here "when he went to school" is an elliptical clause, implying "Grammar rules today are different than (they were) when he went to school." Different from would be fine in the original sentence, because "when he went to school" could be seen as the object of the preposition "from." But if anyone were to challenge your use of "than" in such a sentence, you could explain that the second clause is elliptical, just as in any number of phrases in which we use "than" as a conjunction to indicate compared clauses: "The Red Sox today are better than (they were) when I went to school."

Even in the example he gives "the one I have at home" could be contrued as "the one I have at home (is)," just as it would be if you said "My computer at work is better than the one I have at home (is)."

Technically, one might reasonably frown on using "different than" with an object: It should be "I'm different from him" rather than "I'm different than him," because the object "him" implies that "than" is a preposition. But "I'm different than he is" is fine, whereas "I'm different from he is" sounds stupid and is incorrect. In current usage, though, "than" is certainly making inroads as a preposition, suggesting that in 30 years the writer's assertion will not only be inaccurate (as it is now) but also obsolete.

:)

Two mistakes often used here in CT (but I never heard them in Texas when I was growing up).

Funny, you can say "I brought it home" but "I left it home" sounds weird.

The second example begs the question, "What did he graduate high school to?"

to the "He graduated high school" usage, after I unclench my teeth, is, "Then what did he do with it?"

You LEND something TO someone. You BORROW something FROM someone else.

It is "I SAW" and "I HAVE SEEN"........not, and I repeat NOT "I seen".

Someone else BRINGS you something. You TAKE things to other people.

with prepositions. It's done so frequently now I wonder if it's an abandoned rule.

Or, more succinctly, this is a mistake about which I know nothing.

I shall not put!

:)

The genesis of the rule in, I believe the late 18th century (I'm trying to remember the story as best I can, but I may be off on the date) was the result of (a) the misunderstanding of a latin grammatical rule and (b) the misguided attempt to make english, a germanic language, follow the rules of latin (which weren't even properly understood in this case). These two points of confusion are why it often sounds so awkward and unnatural to reword sentences such that the preposition doesn't come at the end.

But though the rule was silly and misguided, and though this construction very rarely results in confusion, the rule became popular among those who wanted to distinguish their "proper" english from the english of the teeming masses. Nowadays, it sounds more formal to construct sentences so that the preposition is not at the end (a food of which I'm fond, a person with which I'm familiar, etc.), but that's because several generations of the elites took the rule to heart, followed by several generations of misguided but goodhearted grammar instructors.

So in answer to your wondering, it is, in fact, an abandoned rule, but only because it was never a "real" rule to begin with, and even as a pseudo rule (a "superstition," as many prominent grammarians have called it) it wasn't a very good rule :)

...in this thread, fishwax!

I was going to say, "I'm loving your posts", but I'll save my gutter english for political rants. :)

I love grammar, particularly when I can rehabilitate something commonly thought a mistake.

I just posted a response to you downthread as well, about split infinitives :)

:hi:

Love your responses in this thread :D

keeps the lawyers employed, is what I hear ;)


Thanks :)

:shrug:

That drives me nuts, and I hear it all the time. "The reason is that . . ." is correct.

I read something about a teacher pointing out the difference between lay and lie.

She mentioned, "You can lay a book on the desk, but you can't lay me on the desk." One male student chimed in, "Wanna bet"?

Plead Pled Pleaded

as in what W will do in court and how will we say it afterwards

Will he have pleaded or pled guilty?

I wanted to go to. To where? The proper word here should be too, as in also. This dress is to long. To long for what? The proper word here again is too. My brother has to teeth. Grrrrrr. Just drives me batty!!!

Correct: He was waiting for you and me.

Here's how you can get it right: delete "you," pick the right form, and then put "you" back in. Easy.

If you are abbreviating you and are, please, please, please use you're instead of your!

Thank you..end of rant.


Edit: I got so excited, I made a grammatical error myself!

As in, "He wanted not to make an announcement, but to tell people individually."


How can you want "not to" do something? Is that even possible?

Shouldn't it be "to not"?

I think the best way to express that thought is to say, "He wanted to tell people individually, rather than make an announcement."

There are surely better ways to word the sentence!



With respect to the grammatical issue, I just read the Wiki entry for "split infinitive."

Perhaps after a beer or ten it will all begin to make more sense.

although this rule is even more persistent than the ending-preposition rule. Like the ending preposition rule, the bias against splitting infinitives evolves from an understanding of latin, where the infinitive is always one word. Unlike the case of the ending preposition (where the original latin concept was misunderstood), early grammarians were right about splitting infinitives in latin, but it's still a mistake to force latin grammar on the english language just for the fun of it.

Personally, I really like split infinitives because they provide an extra emphasis and elegance. "To boldly go" sounds much better (and has a considerably different emphasis) than "To go boldly." Another reason the rule is silly in my book is that it restricts the placement of the adverb for the infinitive in a way that it is not restricted for any other verb tense. After all, Ben Roethlisberger can quickly throw to his receivers, and he can throw quickly downfield, and if he gets in trouble, apparently, he can think to throw quickly the ball out of bounds. But if he thinks to quickly throw the ball out of bounds, he gets a five-yard grammatical penalty. To me, the "to quickly throw" sounds much better.

If we can say "bush cruelly mangled the english language" or "bush cruelly mangles the english language" or "I'm quite certain bush will cruelly mangle ...," why can't we say "bush has a tendency to cruelly mangle the english language." Must we really say "bush has a tendence to mangle cruelly the english language?" Either way, of course, it's true. But while other verb forms would allow you to put the adverb before or after the verb for a variety of emphases and rhythms, the alleged rule of the split infinitive restricts our choice. I propose to quietly resist this rule, in the name of freedom.

But though I (along with much more gifted writers from John Donne's day on) find split infinitives useful, many people do assume it a mistake, and so sometimes it's best to simply avoid the construction. I always tell my business writing students that, while some of these little mis-rules aren't really grammatically justifiable, they may occasionally have a supervisor for whom these things are a pet peeve, and in that case it's best to consider your audience. And, of course, the more words you put between the "to" and the verb, the greater the opportunity for confusion, so the less justifiable is the split. :)

on edit: fixed a prefix and spelling mistake

verb. In your example, it is not that he "wants not to make an announcement," but rather that he "wants not/to make an announcement, but (rather wants) to tell people individually."

This happens all the time with other verb tenses or with nouns, but it probably doesn't catch your attention when the "to" of the infinitive isn't involved. The quickest example I can think of is the I Have a Dream speech, in which MLK hoped we might someday have a country where people are "judged not" by the color of the skin, but by the content of their character :)

:7



It still trips me up every time I come across it, though. x(

I would be interested to see how it relates.

"Named must your fear be before banish it you can.”

"Not if anything to say about it I have”

"The dark side clouds everything. Impossible to see the future is.”

"Anger, fear, aggression; the dark side of the Force are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will, as it did Obi-Wan's apprentice.”

and etc.

yoda's speech would take some time to analyze, but i'm sure it would be worth it :rofl:

In spoken English, people too often use a double "is":

"The trouble with macaroni is, is that it can get gummy."

I hear it all the time on television.

"The trouble with democracy is, is that it's messy."

"The nice thing about Bush is, is that he's using soap these days."

Another pet peeve is the use of "impact" when "affect" would be a better verb: "Louisiana was impacted by Katrina."

Completely agree about "impact." I used to tell young reporters, "Unless you're writing about a car wreck or a wisdom tooth, I'm changing it."

:hi:

before it became very "in" among the military bureaucracy.

laziness for this one. People can't be bothered to learn effect/affect, so they just use "impacted."

As in, "I'm not sure where those cookies came from...so, you wanna fool around?"

good one :rofl:

A perfect example for this was on the American Idol forum boards, which were almost constantly filled with posts saying, "(Name) did good tonight!"

it gets on my nerves as well. It is SO common, though.

No offense, but your explanation regarding #4 still leaves my brain in knots. I guess I'll never learn :(.

entity.

You can lie down. You cannot lay down. (But you can "lay yourself" down.)

In other words, with "lay" you have to explain what is being "laid" (because "to lay" requires an object). But with "lie," the subject of the verb is acting upon itself.

I lie down. You lie down. Tim lies down. But I lay down a piece of paper. You lay down your arms. Bob Dylan lays down his weary tune.

One cannot "lie" anything but oneself, but one can "lay" pretty much anything.

I don't know if that helps or not :)

Thanks for helping me out! :)

went to a movie." Many people today, more than ever, are very confused about pronouns.

perhaps the people who at a younger age, say "me and my girlfriend went ..." graduate eventually to "myself and my girlfriend went ..." :) But pronouns do seem to generate confusion at all levels.

I saw upthread you do typesetting work ... I had a gig as a typesetter for a while--i really liked the work, but found it funny how editors sometimes had a hard time taking contributions/suggestions from typesetters seriously. Later I worked as an editor in the same organization, and always valued the input from the typesetters. :)

Anyway, a :toast: to typesetters :)

Nothing is comprised of... it is composed of or comprises

I see this mistake a lot in books, its like they don't have editors.

Another is cultural. Afghani is a currency, Afghan is a person. That is even wrong in the textbook I teach out of.

Site is a physical location (remember "situate"). Building site, Web site, etc.

Cite means to refer to information elswhere (remember "citation").

Sight is the facility of sensing and analyzing light with the eyes ("eyesight") or a device for aiming a gun or tool ("telescopic sight").