Common mispellings that seem to be taking over.

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
121

[QUOTE=An Gadaí]
I didn’t begin this thread as a rant about misspellings. I’m interested in seeing what I know to be typos such as the two I cited becoming so prevalent that they may overtake the earlier spellings. I didn’t imply there were conspirators making this happen. It’s the natural evolution of the language. Your comment on Darfur and Iraq might be valid had I posted this in Great Debates or General Questions but thankfully the name of this section of the messageboard is Mundane Pointless Stuff I Must Share.
[/QUOTE]
Point well-taken, and I apologize for not paying better attention to the OP’s purpose–actually, an interesting proposition: will internet misspellings change “correct” spelling?

It was the subsequent postings that prompted my comments:

[QUOTE=thenodyanglefire]
The wide spread use of “loose” for “lose” and “looser” for “loser” on the forums used to annoy me on a daily basis.
[/QUOTE]
Okay, I admit this is the only forum I use, so maybe I’m missing something. But even still, I’m not so sure it would really annoy me that much, unless it interfered with communication.
[QUOTE=Noelq]
The word is THROUGH, dammit! Thru is a poetic contraction! Gah!
[/QUOTE]
It’s also an alternate spelling on many municipal street signs (“Not a Thru Street”=“Dead End”) I hope it wouldn’t upset you so much that you’d continue down the street despite the warning and plow through the house at the end because a city sign painter decided to use a poetic contraction. Granted, it doesn’t save much space, but you have to think of the home owner whose house ends the street.
[QUOTE=Achren]
wierd

weeps
[/QUOTE]
Unless, of course this was just facetious.
[QUOTE=Auntbeast]
Intensive purposes drives me batty.
[/QUOTE]
”Batty?” I’m hoping this is an exaggeration. The product is probably from China, and whoever wrote it probably just misheard a BBC radio broadcast. If every bad use of English in a Chinese product manual drives you “batty,” than you are either not much of a consumer or it’s nice that they give you internet access at the asylum.
[QUOTE=jjim]
The one that really bugs me is people substituting “then” for “than”. Makes me want to hit people with a dead trout.

“Click” for “clique”; and the resultant “clicky”. Perhaps I can alleviate the stress of this one by throwing balls of rolled-up paper at the elderly.

Now it’s mentioned, the “momentarily” thing pisses me off too, to the point of breaking glass in historic monuments
“Athiest”. This one makes me want to strangle puppies.
[/QUOTE]
jjim, take a Valium and just be glad that you know they’re wrong. . If you smash the glass enclosure of the Constitution (for instance), you’ll spend some time in the brink, and pay a heavy fine.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
supercede
[/QUOTE]
Do you really see this a lot on the net? I guess I don’t get around much in cyberspace.
[QUOTE=Aspidistra]
“mute point” bugs the hell out of me (mostly because in my accent it’s not even a homophone)
[/QUOTE]
Do you slam your keyboard when you read this?

First time I’ve ever seen this. I’d just chalk it up to sloppy or rushed typing, or perhaps a young person who’s not very well-read—I certainly wouldn’t start eating nuts.

These comments are all in just [sic], but I didn’t bother to put in the :)s–sometimes they annoy me more than any misspelling.

122

Wow, guizot, you are the most literal minded person I’ve ever encountered. It seems that nobody is allowed to use colorful, descriptive language around you. If I said I “argued til I was blue in the face” about something, I’d bet a crisp $20 that you’d come in sniping at me for the huge lie about my face actually turning blue. :rolleyes:

123

[QUOTE=Cub Mistress]
“Discrete” when “discreet” is meant and "choose’ instead of “chose.”

A local hospital has huge billboards with the picture of someone swinging a child in the air and the caption reads “I choose spinal surgery at GreatHospital.” If you are swinging that kid, you already had the surgery and you chose to have it at GreatHospital.
[/QUOTE]

Maybe it’s meant to be a statement by the kid, who is anticipating a need for spinal surgery after the geezer forgets what he’s doing and wanders off to find his bedroom slippers…

124

[QUOTE=guizot]

Do you slam your keyboard when you read this?
[/QUOTE]

No, slamming the keyboard would be a clear sign that the hell was still in me, don’t you think?

HTH HAND etc etc

125

Never seen “tounge” or “looser” that I can recall, but I’ve definitely noticed the prevalence of “loose” for “lose”.

And the other way 'round, too.

I’ve seen “so in so”, too, and a boatload of other irritating ones among the same lines.

The results of this error are usually pretty amusing, though.

What on Earth are you talking about?

Nope. “Another think” sounds ridiculous to me, like something out of a 50s sitcom about a Communist family in Moscow.

Only if you want to pretend that English is French. “With jus” would sound like “with Jew” and you’re welcome to try it, but you’ll get funny looks everywhere. And if you asked for roast beef “with juice” you’d end up with a rather confused waiter/cashier: do you want apple juice on the side or something? The specific meaning of “jus” is inherent in the French term, but it’s ambiguous in English unless you say “au jus”, which everyone understands. The point of language is to facilitate communication, so language that obstructs understanding is useless.

spoke-, my (bookstore) coworker told me her favorite work story today, about a young boy who came in and asked for help finding “Tequila Mockingbird”. :smiley: And then there was my customer who told me she had just seen “Even the Almighty” and how funny it was. Holy shit! She saw the movie and had no idea what it was called! It’s named after the main character! Holy shit!

I don’t know where this sudden reference to Chinese manufacturing came from, but of all of the people I’ve seen write “for all intensive purposes” for “for all intents and purposes”, I’d wager that 10% at most have ever been to China or heard a BBC radio broadcast.

126

This

127

It apparently means Latvians. Learn something new every day, eh?

128

From the world of erotic fiction, you see these commonly:

loose your cloths.

panites.

And of course, cum.

129

I’d argue that cum is now the correct spelling; it’s the standard choice in erotica and pornography of all kinds, and it’s immediately understood by everyone who would put themselves in a position to read it–more so than “come” as a noun, IMO/E. If the People of the Dope are so inclined, however, I’ll be happy to put my theory to the test with a formal survey of a local mall.

130

[QUOTE=fetus]
I’ll be happy to put my theory to the test with a formal survey of a local mall.
[/QUOTE]

I suspect you’ll get slapped in the face if you ask the wrong girl.

131

Do you really see this a lot on the net? I guess I don’t get around much in cyberspace.
[/QUOTE]
Limiting my search to one year, I found supercede 140 times and supersede 131 times on the SDMB. I think that qualifies as both “common” and “taking over.” :stuck_out_tongue:

132

The widespread use of “BBQ” or “B-B-Q” has apparently led many people to conclude that the full word is barbeque, as opposed to barbecue.

133

[QUOTE=fetus]
“With jus” would sound like “with Jew” and you’re welcome to try it, but you’ll get funny looks everywhere. And if you asked for roast beef “with juice” you’d end up with a rather confused waiter/cashier: do you want apple juice on the side or something? The specific meaning of “jus” is inherent in the French term, but it’s ambiguous in English unless you say “au jus”, which everyone understands. The point of language is to facilitate communication, so language that obstructs understanding is useless.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, but why even say “with” at all? “Au jus” does the job perfectly well on its own. You wouldn’t ask for “duck with à l’orange”, would you?

134

Exactly. You would ask for “roast beef au jus”.

135

[QUOTE=Usram]
I for one am going to start using “just deserts” a lot more, just so I can have the pleasure of correcting people who correct me.
[/QUOTE]

This board has me picturing “champing at the bit” even when people pronounce it chomping.

My vote would be “convience”, even though it’s not a valid misspelling taking over, like barbeque for barbecue. But I have to say I see it more often than the correct spelling. :frowning:

136

Because then you’d be speaking French and you’d get weird looks. “Au jus” is an English noun that means “beef drippings”. That’s life in the English-speaking world. That’s how the language developed and unless you want to get weird looks you gotta use the language that your peers understand. Of course, you can say “roast beef au jus” and you’d probably be understood, but consider this usage:

Customer: “Roast beef au jus, please.”
Server to cook: “One roast beef.”
Cook: “Does he want au jus with that?”

Compare to: “Does he want jus with that?” or “Does he want it with jus?” which would both sound odd if not nonsensical.

137

[QUOTE=fetus]
Because then you’d be speaking French and you’d get weird looks. “Au jus” is an English noun that means “beef drippings”. That’s life in the English-speaking world. That’s how the language developed and unless you want to get weird looks you gotta use the language that your peers understand. Of course, you can say “roast beef au jus” and you’d probably be understood, but consider this usage:

Customer: “Roast beef au jus, please.”
Server to cook: “One roast beef.”
Cook: “Does he want au jus with that?”

Compare to: “Does he want jus with that?” or “Does he want it with jus?” which would both sound odd if not nonsensical.
[/QUOTE]

I think you are confusing “the English-speaking world” with “the United States”, or possibly even “California”. In a UK restaurant that used the French term on the menu (I think it is used less commonly over here anyway), you would certainly be considered ill-educated if you asked for your beef “with au jus”. Maybe English people are more au fait (heh) with the workings of French, and so are less likely to mangle it. Similarly, Americans tend to be more at ease with Spanish, so they don’t ask for “Jall-uh-pee-noes” and so on like a lot of Brits do. :slight_smile:

138

I think the correct spelling of “segue” is doomed. I’ve seen this as “segway” an awful lot (not just referring to the geeky form of transport), and a few times as “segueway.”

I will admit the 2 incorrect spellings make more sense. I think I may start spelling it “segry,” just for fun.

139

[QUOTE=Ichbin Dubist]
I think the correct spelling of “segue” is doomed. I’ve seen this as “segway” an awful lot (not just referring to the geeky form of transport), and a few times as “segueway.”

I will admit the 2 incorrect spellings make more sense. I think I may start spelling it “segry,” just for fun.
[/QUOTE]

For ages whenever I came across that word in print I mentally pronounced it “seeg”. That pronunciation still seems far more appropriate to the meaning than “segway”. The music seegs seamlessly from one passage to another. :slight_smile:

140

Colophon, sorry; I assumed from your irritation about it that the usage had become widespread in the UK.

Edit: How the hell do you even pronounce au fait? Is it like “aw feh”?