No, I think the lose/loose one comes from “rose” “nose” “hose” would mean “lose” is pronounced like “lows” so obviously to make it right you’d need an extra ‘o’.
To me double O means a hard S, except choosy and anything else I didn’t think of.
In the US the common usage definition of moot is “of no practical significance.” This and mute are perfect examples of the OP. Are you a brit?
Even Harvard geniuses have gotten that wrong. https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3106/2574392988_27c287281d_o.png
If they were going to think that deeply into it before deciding how to spell it, they’d take the time to look it up.
Yes, I’m a Brit. That meaning is common in the U.K. too. You’re right, that’s closer to “mute” in meaning.
Isn’t it common in U.S. English for moot to be used when somebody is assuming the truth of something that has not been settled?
No, and I don’t think that sense is common in BrE either.
The senses of moot, the adjective are:
-
A question which is, or is proposed as, the topic for a hypothetical discussion; a question fit for debate by people who want to practice their debating skills, rather than because they care about the question.
-
A question which would be suitable/appropriate for this purpose because it is open to argument, uncertain, debatable, doubtful.
-
A question which would be suitable/appropriate for this purpose because it is of no practical significance or relevance.
I suppose if somebody is proceeding on the basis that a particular proposition is true or settled and you think it’s debatable or uncertain, you might use moot in sense 2 to express that view. But there’s nothing inherent in “moot” to imply that anyone has mistakenly taken a moot point to be settled.
This does depend on accent, though. Here in North East England (and, I’m sure, in other parts of Britain) the difference between “could of” and “could’ve” is quite clear, particularly at the end of a sentence.
GuanoLad – I concur with your words immediately above; less perhaps, with those concerning "pronounced like ‘lows’ ". IMO logic, consistency and methodical thinking things through, don’t play a great part in language use – written or spoken. I reckon drad dog right about the chaos-content; and that that has always been the case.
In BrE there seems to be another sense of “moot.”
I often read “… the question was mooted. …” in BrE writing. Where the plain sense is that the question has been or is being brought up for discussion. IOW, it’s now the current topic of conversation, highly relevant to whatever’s going on.
That usage is, IME, completely absent in USA English. AIUI in AmerE “moot” is purely for things that are inoperative by design or circumstance.
“He’s dead Jim; whatever he wanted for dinner, it’s moot now.” The “moot court” is a debating and lawyer training technique where fake trials of real cases are held and decided by fake judges and fake juries. The issues are real; it’s the fact the fake court has no real power to implement its decision that renders the whole thing “moot.”
etc.
The only one I get vitriolic about is “literally”, because it significantly diminishes the ability to communicate. So long as the word “literally” retains its meaning, all other metaphorical, sarcastic, and other figurative usages are on the table, because if it’s ever unclear, you can ask the speaker whether they mean it literally. But when “literally” itself becomes subject to the same treatment, you have no further recourse.
That said, the “loose” one does hold a special annoyance for me, because there is a verb definition for “loose”, and whenever I see it used as a verb, my mind always goes there. The example that sticks most clearly in my head was the MA Senate special election of 2010, where someone said something like “The Democrats are about to loose Massachusetts”. And so I pictured someone nocking the state of Massachusetts to a gigantic bow, drawing, and letting it fly.
nm. 'Twas a fine joke, but probably too close to political for GQ.
Where do I get one?
“Gross” in the vernacular means “grisly,” or “disgusting.” Since “grotesque” means unnaturally shaped, usually in a disturbing way," sometimes the words can describe the same thing, like a person who has been hit by a car, or some other kind of body, say, a partially decomposed and bloated one, or a serial killer’s victim. And sometimes figures in art that are grotesque and meant to disturb might be “gross” to some viewers-- but not always. They painting at the end of the movie The Picture of Dorian Gray is both grotesque and gross. Some of Picasso’s figures might legitimately be described as grotesque, but I can’t think of one I would call “gross.” Some things, on the other hand, are just gross. Having meat go bad and develop maggots in your fridge is really gross, but not grotesque.
From post #106. 
Personally, I define “gross” as “excessively biological”. I can’t really think of anything considered “gross” that doesn’t derive its grossness from biological activity, and anything biological in excess seems to end up gross.
When I saw the title of the thread, I thought it meant something like the old George Carlin joke;
"Flammable
InFlammable
Non-Inflammable
The thing either flams or it doesn’t."
But that’s not quite the same, or is it?
Nobody’s mentioned defuse/diffuse yet?
You defuse a tense situation. You do not diffuse it.
Moot is very common in the US and used to say that something has been settled already, in other words someone is assuming an issue exists which has been rendered meaningless, usually by succeeding events. I don’t hear “We mooted it” too much, never used it myself.
I have heard “mute point” a few times in conversation.
Not exactly a case of interchange both ways but ‘misnomer’ is often used incorrectly where ‘misconception’ would be appropriate (when it’s not about a name for something).
The “rendered meaningless” part is far more important than “settled already”. If something has been accomplished or decided for once and for all, and what path is to be taken is no longer a point of discussion, I don’t think anyone describing it would call the decision “moot” - the decision very much has meaning, it’s just arguing against a fait accompli will not accomplish anything.
Whereas, if a custody dispute ends because of the death of the child, then one would say that the question of custody would become moot, and the point is never actually resolved.