Saw this coffee mug yesterday, gave me a good laugh.
Tenet/Tenant. I just think many people don’t know of the word “tenet” at all, and just substitute a known homophone.
If you know how /where to buy one, please post the details. That’s fucking awesome. 
would of, could of, should of, versus would’ve, could’ve, should’ve
No. it ALSO means moist.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/damp
slightly wet; *moist: *
damp weather; a damp towel.
Machine Elf was comparing the two verbs damp and dampen. The adjective damp didn’t enter into it.
Apparently some people think that “way” in the expression “way too (whatever)” is an abbreviation of “away”. Maybe it is, but by now I’d say most of us don’t remember it.
LSLGuy, you owe me a mug 
You can see other pretties from the same brand here.
Works in only one direction only, I think.
Do people actually ever say “would’ve” when they meant to say “would of”?
Are there realistic examples of saying “would of” (and meaning it) in a sentence?
“would of” is commonly (and incorrectly) used when “would have” is the correct choice. The only way I can think of to correctly use “would of” is if the “of” is part of “of course.” Thus:
“it would of course be wrong to use ‘would of’ when one means ‘would have.’”
And like you, I’ve never seen someone use “would have” when they should have used “would of”.
The “would of” one is tricky, because it only shows up in writing, not in speech (or at least, isn’t recognizable as such in speech). The incorrect “would of” is pronounced identically with the correct “would’ve”, which would’ve course be the origin of the mistake.
Cavalry and Calvary.
Lightning is zappy electricity from the clouds. Lightening is to partially unburden or the opposite of darkening.
Nicely done.
From the Bard:
I’m joking with the above slightly edited quotes, of course.
But another instance of “would of” in All’s Well That Ends Well has me slightly puzzled:
Presumably the punctuation must indicate that a train of thought in the soliloquy is interrupted mid-sentence? I can’t make sense of it otherwise.
I find that I can forgive the business of “loose” taking over the role of “lose” – envisage a mental link on the user’s part, involving something “breaking loose from”, or “getting loose of”, one. Rather like with “hone in / home in”, as below:
“Hone in began as an alteration of home in… there are arguments in its favor. Hone means to sharpen or perfect, and we can think of homing in as a sharpening of focus or a perfecting of one’s trajectory toward a target…extending hone this way, is not a huge leap.”
I am perhaps too tolerant of English usage of the wrong-resembling-words kind; but feel that letting it greatly bother one, leads only to getting angry and miserable – without any improvement in people’s language use taking place.
Actually, I’d say this has been an exceptionally civilized discussion, among threads of the genre!
One of the surest ways to generate a huge number of comments is to start a thread along the lines of “What things about language annoy you?” And the anger and vitriol with which language peeves are sometimes expressed can be quite astonishing. I think there’s certainly a lot more to the phenomenon than a noble desire for improvement in language use. An interesting article from Mark Liberman at Language Log:
nm
…would, of…
The comma makes it perfectly plain and common
“The maid would, of wood, be made”
Right but this doesn’t explain why they don’t tie it with looser, hard “s” meaning less tight, automatically. It’s chaos I tell you.
That’s sure the way I read it. IOW:
“I’ll have no more pity of his age than I would of his weak defensive rolles. I’ll beat him, an if I could meet him again.” But in midsentence the speaker decided to skip the “his weak defensive rolles” part. 
But doesn’t moot mean “subject to debate”, or “up for discussion”?
Yes, I made a mess of that, didn’t I. The most common sense in everyday speech is “subject to debate” with the implication of unsettled, unresolved. I guess the similarity in meaning to “mute” is kind of vague, but I think it’s still there - we can’t speak definitively about it <–> we should keep quiet about it.