Common mispellings that seem to be taking over.

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:

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.

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.

Unless, of course this was just facetious.

”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.

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.

Do you really see this a lot on the net? I guess I don’t get around much in cyberspace.

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.

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:

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…

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

HTH HAND etc etc

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.

This

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

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

loose your cloths.

panites.

And of course, cum.

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.

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

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:

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.

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?

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

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:

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.

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:

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.

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:

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”?