Spellcheck is responsible IMO for the appalling acceptance of “loose” for “lose.”
“Hey, I spellchecked it, it came out okay, what’s your problem?”
Yeah, eye no watt ewe mien…
Barry
jovan, i dont understand why if there’s communIsm theIsm capitalIsm, why it would be thiEst, or communEst or capitalEst…?
maybe i should read all the posts before replying huh?
smack
Hmm, yeah, see…
I live in Philadelphia yet somehow wasn’t given the Philadelphian accent that my family members have. For example…
You know the supermarket Acme? Well, in Philly people say, “Ac-uh-me.” They add an extra syllable! And that old-fashioned type store, the A&P? Well, a good many Philadelphians say, “Ampee,” instead of, “A and P.” Most Philadelphians say “wooder” instead of “water.” (I admit, I do that, too.) People go “uppamountains,” and, “downshore,” instead of up to the mountains or down to the shore.
Its just the funny lil things of that caliber…
Hey now! It’s downAshore, not downshore.
Heh.
Good mini-rant. I would add to that the folks who can’t distinguish between there/their.
Thanks. Er, I think…
Barry
Then I’ll be nice and not further rub your nose in your factual inaccuracies on this topic. 
Daniel
Boldface Type reminds me that I hate it when people use “replete” as if it meant “complete” instead of “full of.” Thank you for using it correctly!
My theory is that people are spelling definitely “definAtely” because they have to put the A that they took out of sepArate somewhere. Now if I could only figure out where they got the E to spell it seperate with, as well as what happened to the I that came out of definitely. (And do they spell definite “definAte”?) It frightens me to think that there are random vowels on the lose out there! Thiey could show op anywheere!
Well, Daniel, sometimes I’m wrong, probably more often than I think! That said, it’s easier to be wrong in grammar than in most subjects, because even the experts disagree on some things.
I was given to understand than an oxymoron was something that sounded contradictory, without necessarily being so. So ‘jumbo shrimp’ is an oxymoron, because ‘jumbo’ and ‘shrimp’ normally mean opposites, even though they make sense in this case. Calling military intellegence an oxymoron is a joke because it implies the military cant* be intellegent.
Also, I like ‘incent.’ Is there another word that means ‘give an incentive to’ as effectively? Of course, I’m sure its coiners are not using it like that 
‘conversate’ is annoying because there are plenty of words that mean ‘talk’ already. Though not as annoying as where a word is misused to mean the opposite. GAH!
[*] At least one deliberate mistake included in this post
“I can’t bare it when she bears her breasts in public.”
contains another irritatingly common misspelling that has not been mentioned so far.
I find it most perplexing that many people who routinely transpose ‘their’, ‘they’re’ and ‘there’ actually know the correct spelling when pressed to consider the appropriate usage carefully. Why, then, do they not get it right first time?
You might be able to get away with that. Comedians certainly are because it sounds funny (the first of the 9,000 times you hear it).
Here’s an abuse I’ve gotten sick of, it’s on TV all the time: something dramatic happens, and a character swears “As god as my witness, I will whateverwhateverwhatever.” STUPID! The phrase is “As god IS my witness” or “With god as my witness.” Those make sense. There’s no way the first version makes any kind of comparable declaration, no matter how motivated you are.
One other thing, maybe this fits in here: I’m tired of hearing people use “shock and awe” for anything that surprises anybody. If this becomes a permanent part of our language, I’m going to be rather annoyed.
Well, speaking as one who knows perfectly well the distinction between the three words and who still manages to type the wrong one on occasion, all I can say is that it’s some bizarre form of muscle memory. My brain tells my fingers what word to type, but my fingers are so accustomed to moving in a certain way that they completely disregard my brain’s instructions and type whatever the hell they want to type.
It’s the same reason that I consistently type out such things as “unfortuantely” and “particualr.” My brain knows the way they are really spelled, but my fingers just refuse to type what they are told to type. I should point out, BTW, that I am NOT a touch typer and probably type way to fast.
Sad, but true…
Barry
dan -
One more note on the “have got” controversy. It is a taught standard in all the ESL textbooks I have used. It’s usually declared as optional, and, as I’ve said before, tends to be more prevalent in British English usage. Some random googling resources find it taught here:
http://members.lycos.co.uk/missjanssens/grammar_tohave.htm
www.eslcafe.com/help/index.cgi%3Fread%3D81964+%22i+got%22+%22i+have%22+%22i+have+got%22+grammar&hl=en&ie=UTF-8"]
This one seems to agree it’s a British usage.
“Have got,” in this sense, is a present tense verb. It is not treated as a present perfect form, despite its appearance.
Also, this form appears in the modal “have (got) to.”
I have to catch the train to work tomorrow.
I have got to catch the train to work tomorrow.
Both are considered acceptable to my knowledge.
In these usages, dropping the “have” from “have got” is considered “incorrect” usage.
I got to catch the train tomorrow. (Incorrect.)
I got a car. (Incorrect, if the meaning of got is “have,” and not “received.”)
Is this clearer?
Sorry, that second link is a cached google link, and the bloomin’ vB code is constantly inserting a stray tag inside the link, and I can’t figure out a way to fix it.
Here’s what it says:
Used as a present tense verb, it would mean “to possess”; when used with “got,” it’s used as a helping verb.
Think of it this way. “I have to catch” means the same as “I must catch.” Would you say “I must got to catch”?
Have is an auxiliary verb to got. But I think it’s repetitive, because not using the “got” doesn’t change your meaning:
I have got to catch the train.
I have to catch the train.
If they’re the same, then the shorter should be the more acceptable, because it’s more concise.
Also, there are plenty of differences between UK English and US English - perhaps this is one. I cringe when I hear it in an American context, but since UK English employs many deviations from US English (okay, the other way around), it doesn’t bother me in that context.
At any rate, it’s important to note the difference between “have” as a helping verb and “have” as a main verb (meaning “to possess”)
I have several friends who have an interesting and somewhat confusing habit of using “whenever” instead of “when”. As in, “Remember whenever we went to the store last night?” Or even worse, “I remember whenever I was a kid, my Mom would…”
Anyone else ever heard this usage of whenever? It gets a little confusing in conversations. “Whenever we went to…” used when referring to one particular instance always throws me off.
That’s right.
No. But you can say “I have got to catch.”
I don’t disagree. You don’t need to use “got.” It’s optional (in these cases). It doesn’t change the meaning.
More concise needn’t equal more acceptable. In interests of journalistic style, we eschew “towards” for “toward,” and “forwards” for "forward"to save space. And I would say there’s nothing incorrect in a style which prefers “have” and “have to” to “have go” and “have got to.”
But I don’t mind these other forms. Somehow, the longer forms sound more “polite” to my ears. “Have you got a pen?” sounds positively charming to me compared with “Do you have a pen?” Others may not agree. But I also like “got” in these forms because you can stress it in spoken English in a way which just doesn’t work as well with “have.”
“I’ve just got to get all this work done.”
“I just have to get all this work done.” (pron. “haff”)
The former just somehow sounds more forceful to me.
In day-to-day journalistic prose I would advocate the simpler form, of course. But I have no problem with the longer form.
I also think we’re in agreement here.