Talk:List of commonly misused English words

This seems to be more appropriate for Wiktionary.—Eloquence

That may be true, though we do have lists of commonly misspelled words, and American and British English Differences and related stuff. I think this is pretty similar, but I do agree that it should probably be on Wiktionary unless there's a good foundation of etymology and other juicy descriptive stuff to go along with it.

Another note - would it be appropriate to extend this article to include words which are used to mean something other than they're supposed to mean? For instance, Jay Leno's repeatedly incorrect usage of the word "irony" to mean anything at all which is coincidental, or the popular use (and mispronounciation) of the word "angst", used to mean "full of anger" or similar nonsense. Or phrases, such as begging the question. Could get lengthy :-) -- Wapcaplet 02:01, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Irony should be on here - it's widely abused! Begging the Question is covered on its own page. I think this page is worth having, partly because there or other similar ones, but also it allows discussion of the misuse and a bit more explanation that a dictionary tends to. Also people (I think) use a dictionary differently from an encyclopaedia, and wouldn't pick up pointers on use/abuse in a dictionary. GRAHAMUK 05:36, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I am not a native speaker of English, but according to the alt.usage.english FAQ entry http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxhopefu.html the sentence-modifying usage of hopefully is not discouraged by "most scholars", although there is enough opposition to make the usage controversial. They have pretty good counter-examples too... 62.78.197.148 09:38, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

In looking up some of these words on dictionary.com, the American Heritage definitions in particular often mention a "Usage panel" that were some percentage in favor of or against certain usages of a word (look up "Hopefully", for example). Perhaps we should cite these "authorities" in claiming the correctness/incorrectness of these usages; it seems fairly POV to be stating throughout this article that such-and-such "should not be used in this way." A good language authority, or several, would be better than the weasel term "most scholars" we have now. I would also vote for moving the article itself to a less POV title, such as List of English words with disputed usage. Comments? -- Wapcaplet 14:49, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It also strikes me that this list could be broken into separate categories of word misuse. The largest group probably consists of words used to mean something other than they "actually" mean: irony, angst, etc. Those seem to me rather likely to enter accepted usage, if they haven't already. That's one way that language grows - by words gaining new meanings in new contexts.

Closely related, it seems, is words which are used with a meaning approximately the same as their dictionary meaning: less, hopefully, presently, etc. They're just used in a way that is inconsistent with their "proper" usage. There's no grammatical error, really (that I know of); they're used in a way that seems perfectly natural to most people, but grates on the ears of the more militant grammarians. These seem almost equally likely to enter accepted usage.

And of course, there are those which are almost universally derided for being grammatically or punctuationally incorrect: it's/its, their/they're/there, and so on. These may never make it into accepted usage.

There are probably other categories. There are disputes over whether it's acceptable to begin a sentence with a word like "but", "however", or "therefore". Some cases, like "of" being used in place of "have", are examples of inaccuracies in speech being taken literally. I even had an English professor who strongly protested the use of adverbs for just about any reason, but I think that may have been for aesthetic reasons.

Anyhow, there is a lot to think about on this article. I'd hate to see it turn into a list of pet peeves; many of these are legitimate examples of bad English, but some are quite possibly more accepted than rejected. -- Wapcaplet 01:42, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

this whole page teeters dangerously on the brink of POV

Hopefully my decision to take out "hopefully" and "less" won't be too controversial. I'll think about making a "things that grammar nazis complain about that aren't really wrong" page (with a NPOV title of course). Nohat 20:38, 2003 Sep 8 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have too much a problem with hopefully, I do feel that less/fewer is widely abused. It's OK if YOU want to abuse these words, after all you're the one who will sound like a moron when using them in that fashion. What annoys me about this comment though, is that as the one who put in these entries, I'm being implicitly called a Nazi. Now there is a word that is widely abused in English - to call anyone who cares about maintaining certain standards, or simply who disagrees with you about something, a Nazi is pretty damned offensive, and totally unjustified. I don't see any genocide being committed here, or even anything particularly right-wing or fascistic about caring about the proper use of words. I'm putting less/fewer back in - my sources (Collins Cobuild English Dictionary; OED) are unequivocal about it, less is for uncountable objects, fewer is for countable objects. End of story. Yes, these are widely misused (especially less), but that's the point of the page. Hopefully is one that can be argued about. GRAHAMUK 18:24, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

My American Heritage Dictionary says

Less than can be used before a plural noun that denotes a measure of time, amount, or distance: less than three weeks; less than $400; less than 50 miles. Less is sometimes used with plural nouns in the expressions no less than (as in No less than 30 of his colleagues signed the letter) and or less (as in Give your reasons in 25 words or less)

This usage of less is used all the time by well-educated native English speakers, and although such usage is disputed, it doesn't belong on List of words widely abused in English, it belongs on List of English words with disputed usage, where it currently resides (the page with the name that is the NPOV version of "things that grammar nazis complain about that aren't really wrong"). I think most people would disagree that someone who uses the constructions above would "sound like a moron." On the other hand, anyone who argues that it's indisputably wrong, is being, well, a grammar nazi.

And as for the term grammar nazi, it has enjoyed considerable use long before I ever used it. See [1]. In fact, some people even cheerfully apply the term to themselves. See [2], [3], and [4]. The term grammar nazi doesn't necessarily imply genocide or fascism. You wouldn't argue that a person who spraypaints graffiti isn't a vandal because she wasn't part of that Germanic tribe, or that an anti-intellectual boor isn't a philistine because she's not from Philistia, would you? I used the term grammar nazi mostly out of humor, although perhaps my use of the term was in poor taste, as you appear to have been offended by it. There is already a discussion of the potential poor taste in invoking the term nazi in a non-WWII-related context on Godwin's law. This page shouldn't be a dumping ground for people's linguistic pet peeves, but a real list of real and frequent incorrect usage. As such, grammar nazi wasn't incorrect usage, and it doesn't belong in this article.

-- Nohat 16:52, 2003 Sep 10 (UTC)

In that case, perhaps it should be added to list of differences between American and British English? It's certainly not correct in real English, though derivative forks may have failed to keep to the rules. ;-)

And, on the other topic of contention, I too find the use of the term 'grammar nazi' offensive, even when applied by the target of the comment.

James F. 22:51, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I take your point about vandal, philistine, et. al. However, I feel that Nazism is too recent in history for the word to become diluted in this manner - it is the 20th century's greatest tragedy after all, not the 1st century's. By applying the term to all sorts of minor quibbles or pedantry is to dishonour those who suffered by it. Besides, whatever you say the fact remains - I was offended. I may be a pedant, but I am not a Nazi. Anyway, I think I've made my point; life's too short to enter into an edit war over this, so I'll let it rest now. As for less/fewer, I think it's American usage that is largely responsible for the corruption of these over time. While some of the usages quoted seem fine, some sound better to my ears for the substitution of fewer - maybe that's because I'm British, so James F's suggestion is probably valid. Despite the temptation, it's silly to complain about Americans' mangling of English - after all modern British English bears little resemblance to Chaucer's, so these are just mutations we have to live with I guess. GRAHAMUK 23:15, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Glad to see my suggestion about a "disputed usage" article was approved of. I'd be interested in seeing an article about how words become accepted into English usage standards. It's pretty indisputable that language grows to encompass grammar and spelling previously considered "wrong"; surely some linguists have done studies of how and when it happens. Such an article would have a great deal of bearing on articles like this one. I'm curious to know whether certain usages (such as "hopefully", "less", etc.) remain in dispute merely because the writers of dictionaries say they are. It seems that some usages become very pervasive and widely accepted, despite the best efforts of grammarians to stop it. It seems to me that usage should dictate correctness, rather than the other way around. Spoken language came first; we only later learned to write it down and make up rules about how it should be used. To me it seems that dictionaries are more like guidelines than commandments. Obviously we can't understand one another without common grammatical and spelling conventions, but those rules should describe the practices that are in actual use, rather than the ideal practices that dictionary authors would have everyone follow.

Of course, this is all just my POV :-) But I feel that such a perspective (preferably stated by one better studied in English than I, as my comprehension of lexical and grammatical structures has always been near-nonexistent) would balance out the POV towards strict grammarianism in articles like this one. -- Wapcaplet 04:50, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

p.s. - Not being a fan of the show, I'm only guessing at this, but undoubtedly the "soup nazi" popularized on Seinfeld helped to bring about the more generic usage of "nazi". -- Wapcaplet 04:58, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I agree with the opinion that we should cover disputed usage. It is definitely POV to simply state this usage is wrong and don't do it. Wikipedia is not a language guide. However, it is certainly an interest of wikipedia to cover who or what force thinks that usage is wrong or how those usages changed historically. Actually we already this kind of article like Engrish and Chingrish. Never mind la is a famous misusage of Chinese dialect of English. Wikipedia is all about knowledge of human and even those shameful, disgusting stuff should be included. -- Taku 05:36, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

What has been gained by moving this page to a new (and IMHO, a more awkward) title? The original title gets across the point I was trying to make, which is that these words are widely misused, so much so that many people pick up on these things as if it were the correct usage. Frequent misuse is not the same thing as wide misuse. The former is an implication of time, the latter of numbers of people. The new title doesn't convey the correct sense of what I was trying to say, and nor does it make it any easier to find the article. What was the point? I think it should be moved back. GRAHAMUK 23:40, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I moved the page so that the order of words in the name is (more) parallel to List of English words with disputed usage and List of words of disputed pronunciation, although that should probably be changed to List of English words with disputed pronunciation. I was planning to put links to all of them on the English language page, under a heading called usage or something thus. The reason I chose "frequent misuse" instead of, say, "'widespread abuse" was because, frankly, talking of words "widely abused" smacks of hyperbole, pedantry, and contempt for those making the errors, three things that have no place on Wikipedia. I think my choice of words was less focused on scorning the error makers and more on describing the phenomena at hand.

-- Nohat 01:34, 2003 Sep 12 (UTC)

Given your declaration on your user page, I'm clearly on to a loser here. As I said, life's too short for edit wars, so I'll leave it up to you. I'm outta here, I have better things to get on with! :) GRAHAMUK 01:57, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps List of English words with disputed meaning is in order here. The word "misuse" also derides those who use them in certain ways. Does anyone have comments on my previous suggestion about breaking the list into different categories of disputed usage? Pronounciation, meaning, and grammatical context seem to be the major categories of disputed usage. Spelling could be counted as well, but it seems less common for a "wrong" spelling variation to enter popular usage. Then again, there are those who would like to reform spelling completely. I wholeheartedly agree that we should work harder on describing English "misuse", why it happens, how it becomes acceptable in some cases, and especially what interesting language developments and word meanings have come about because of it, and worry less about ridiculing those who make the mistakes. -- Wapcaplet 00:54, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I see that when arguing over "hopefully" and "less", you also took out "presently". Can this go on the disputed page too? Wiwaxia 01:32, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yes, "presently" is an example of a disputed usage. In my experience it's a British/American thing. I (an American) have never observed another American using "presently" to mean "in the near future". I have observed that usage by British speakers though. See [5].Nohat

P.S. how about an entry for "lay" and "lie"?

Sure, go ahead. I never get them right anyway, so I'd be a bad person to write it.

--Nohat 04:35, 2003 Sep 15 (UTC)

We also really need "affect" and "effect" Loren Rosen 05:37, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I removed infer/imply after doing some research. It seems that if three major dictionaries list "imply" as a possible meaning for "infer" than labeling that usage simply as "misusage" is POV. Furthermore, the usage seems to date to at least 1530, so arguing that it is some kind of recent corruption of English is specious. This pair of words definitely belongs on List of English words with disputed usage.

From the American Heritage Dictionary, 4th ed:

Transitive verb: 1. To conclude from evidence or premises. 2. To reason from circumstance; surmise: We can infer that his motive in publishing the diary was less than honorable. 3. To lead to as a consequence or conclusion: "Socrates argued that a statue inferred the existence of a sculptor" (Academy). 4. To hint; imply.

Intransitive verb: To draw inferences.

Usage note: Infer is sometimes confused with imply, but the distinction is a useful one. When we say that a speaker or sentence implies something, we mean that it is conveyed or suggested without being stated outright: When the mayor said that she would not rule out a business tax increase, she implied (not inferred) that some taxes might be raised. Inference, on the other hand, is the activity performed by a reader or interpreter in drawing conclusions that are not explicit in what is said: When the mayor said that she would not rule out a tax increase, we inferred that she had been consulting with some new financial advisers, since her old advisers were in favor of tax reductions.

Note here that AHD4 supports the distinction but nevertheless lists the indistinct meaning in the definitions (4).

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

4. To lead to (something) as a conclusion; to involve as a consequence; to imply. (Said of a fact or statement; sometimes, of the person who makes the statement.)

This use is widely considered to be incorrect, esp. with a person as the subject.

Note here that OED notes this usage is widely considered to be incorrect without actually stating it to be so by excluding the definition.

From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

transitive senses

1 : to derive as a conclusion from facts or premises <we see smoke and infer fire -- L. A. White> -- compare IMPLY

2 : GUESS, SURMISE <your letter... allows me to infer that you are as well as ever -- O. W. Holmes died 1935>

3 a : to involve as a normal outcome of thought b : to point out : INDICATE <this doth infer the zeal I had to see him -- Shakespeare> <another survey... infers that two-thirds of all present computer installations are not paying for themselves -- H. R. Chellman>

4 : SUGGEST, HINT <are you inferring I'm incompetent?>

usage Sir Thomas More is the first writer known to have used both infer and imply in their approved senses (1528). He is also the first to have used infer in a sense close in meaning to imply (1533). Both of these uses of infer coexisted without comment until some time around the end of World War I. Since then, senses 3 and 4 of infer have been frequently condemned as an undesirable blurring of a useful distinction. The actual blurring has been done by the commentators. Sense 3, descended from More's use of 1533, does not occur with a personal subject. When objections arose, they were to a use with a personal subject (now sense 4). Since dictionaries did not recognize this use specifically, the objectors assumed that sense 3 was the one they found illogical, even though it had been in respectable use for four centuries. The actual usage condemned was a spoken one never used in logical discourse. At present sense 4 is found in print chiefly in letters to the editor and other informal prose, not in serious intellectual writing. The controversy over sense 4 has apparently reduced the frequency of use of sense 3.

--Nohat 15:31, 2003 Oct 28 (UTC)

Despite the solid research here, I'm unhappy about this. You're assuming that corruptions and meaning changes all seem to move one way. It is also possible for the meanings of two words to diverge in meaning, and I suggest that this is what is happening here - in fact the words in modern usage are moving apart in meaning, not closer together. Notwithstanding the numbers of speakers (especially sportsmen, who can be forgiven) who misuse these terms, there are a great number of people for whom the hearing of the word "infer" to mean "imply" induces a horrible, grating, wincing sensation, often accompanied by a shuddering of the spine. It is useful that the language contains separate terms for the separate meanings, it reduces misunderstandings - there is little purpose to having two interchangeable words with the same meaning, one of them is redundant. I propose in the interests of a) reflecting modern thinking on the topic and b) the attempted preservation of clear communication, and c) the view of many commentators on the topic, the entry is kept.

Incidentally, since you admit that you are personally strongly anti-prescriptionist, something which lovers of language tend in general to disagree with, I'd suggest that your POV is leading you to edit articles you personally disagree with. That is equally POV to those who consider e.g. infer/imply to be separate in meaning. An accommodation of both (or neither) POV is required. GRAHAMUK 00:11, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Prescriptivism is inherently POV, yes. However, I don't agree the same can be said for descriptivism. In fact, I'd say it is inherently NPOV. Why? because descriptivists seek only to describe what is happening in the language. Despite the myths about descriptivists promulgated by conservative prescriptionists, descriptivism does not seek to legitimize every possible use or misuse of a word. Descriptivists only seek to describe what is happening in a language. If a large number of people use a word in a particular way, a descriptivist approach would be simply to describe that usage. The only additional obligation that NPOV provides is that the beliefs of the prescriptivists should be described as well, but also attributed to the prescriptivists.

As for the issue at hand, I'm not really making any claims as to whether the meanings are moving apart or coming together. I am simply reporting the facts surrounding the usage. The critical pieces are:

The usages of infer/imply with both their distinct meanings and their similar meanings have been in use in English for at least 400 years.
Nobody seemed to care about the apparent "contradiction" in the multiple senses until the early 20th century.
Usage of the M-W sense 4 of infer is in common usage in English, although its "correctness" is disputed by self-appointed arbiters of English correctness.
Many English words have multiple, contradictory meanings, and although it occasionally causes confusion, it is simply an artifact of how language works. Prescriptivists have long tried to stamp out contradictory meanings by arguing that one meaning is more "logical" or is better grounded in the history of the word, but that doesn't make them right.

Given all these facts, I felt that including this entry on this page is POV. I don't argue that there is an issue here that merits coverage in the Wikipedia. Infer/imply should definitely be listed on List of English words with disputed usage. I just haven't done that.

As for the accusation that my POV is leading me to make POV edits: my POV is that of the NPOV. I am not here to say English words should or shouldn't be used one way or another. I am only here to report the facts in a neutral manner, and it seemed to me that the sentence "Infer and imply do not mean the same thing, and should not be used interchangeably" was flagrantly POV, so I removed it. It is not the place of Wikipedia to dictate how words are to be used. It is not the place of Wikipedia to use "should" at all, unless it is reporting what somebody else says or thinks.

--Nohat 17:42, 2003 Oct 29 (UTC)

Now you've done it - you've gone and used the 'c' word (c*ns*rv*t*ve). Now I'm really upset! GRAHAMUK 23:33, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

More removals

I have removed literally, which used to say

Literally - is not an emphatic, unless the thing to which it refers is actually true. It is used to disambiguate a possible metaphorical interpretation of a phrase.
- Incorrect: The party literally went with a bang. (No it didn't, unless there was an actual explosion).
- Correct: He literally painted the town red; he was the council painter and decorator.

Because the hyperbolic intensive meaning of the word _is_ in the dictionary, although its usage is disputed. Someone can put it on List of English words with disputed usage if they want.

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary

Main Entry: lit·er·al·ly

Pronunciation: 'li-t&-r&-lE, 'li-tr&-lE, 'li-t&r-lE

Function: adverb

1 : in a literal sense or manner : ACTUALLY <took the remark literally> <was literally insane>

2 : in effect : VIRTUALLY <will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice -- Norman Cousins>

usage Since some people take sense 2 to be the opposite of sense 1, it has been frequently criticized as a misuse. Instead, the use is pure hyperbole intended to gain emphasis, but it often appears in contexts where no additional emphasis is necessary.

--Nohat 19:20, 2004 Feb 5 (UTC)

I STRONGLY disagree that literally has no place here. Now really. Just because Merriam Webster mentions this usage doesn't make it right. In fact they are pointing out it's a misuse (though they weasel out of stating that it's wrong). Think about it! "He literally turned the world upside down". It's bizarre! There is no way this can ever be considered correct usage, it's a physical impossibility. The word "literally" means, quite unambiguously "as written". That many people use it incorrectly doesn't make it OK. That's the point of this page! There are some words that can be argued about, but this is not one of them. In fact it's possibly THE misuse that bugged me sufficiently to start the page in the first place. I am going to put it back in. Graham 22:02, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's called Hyperbole. Language doesn't always have to make literal sense to be grammatical or "correct". M-W says it's OK. I say it's OK. And just because you say it's wrong doesn't make it so, no matter how many arguments about "logic" you make. Language has proven time and again that it isn't always logical, no matter how much you might want it to be. It's a dispute, and that's why it belongs at List of English words with disputed usage. I'll leave it in while you cogitate on the neutrality of stating as fact something contrary to what a dictionary says. You might also want to consult Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a usage guide. --Nohat 22:23, 2004 Feb 5 (UTC)

I agree with nohat, in the last few years literally has moved from universally seen as incorrect to disputed. That doesn't mean it's right, by definition, it's disputed. ;) Now what about redundant, does anyone have any comments? So far nohat says redundant doesn't belong, I say it does. fabiform | talk 23:51, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, I still disagree. I can imagine a conversation with you in person would drive me up the wall, with all the misuse you'd be prepared to throw into it. I bet if I poked you in the eye for every usage I disagreed with you'd soon see my point. If prescriptivism had no place, then we'd be free to make up usage as we went along. I'm fruitcake that literally ungracious nub wouldn't not proof otherwise to conductivity of incapacious communication......... Anyway, why is M-W the final word? I have several sources at my disposal, including the OED, which is surely at least as great if not greater authority than M-W. I also have something called the Collins Cobuild dictionary which is a dictionary of actual usage, which includes many, many misuses of this sort (which it rightly points out ARE misuses). Even it balks at the suggestion that "literally" can be correctly used simply for hyperbolic effect. Those that do this simply make themselves literally sound stupid. Graham 06:52, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

First of all, I'm getting a little tired of the way you are misrepresenting my arguments. As a descriptivist, I'm not trying to say that prescriptivism is wrong, that everything prescriptivists say should be ignored, that writers should be free to write however they want, and that all grammar rules should be ignored. Please stop implying that that is what I am trying to do.

Second, I in no way am trying to argue that the prescriptive POV has no place in Wikipedia, something the converse of which you seem to be willing to argue. What I am trying to argue is that the prescriptivist POV has has to be contextualized. You appear to be content to baldly state that it is incorrect to use "literally" for simple hyperbole; that there is no legitimate argument about it; that it's wrong, wrong, wrong and Wikipedia must describe it as such. Now while I myself would probably not use "literally" in that way, I recognize that neither I, nor you, nor any dictionary or usage guide is legitimately in the position to declare authoritatively that such usage is "wrong". They may claim to be authoritative, and all the better if people listen and reduce the amount of insipid prose out there, but we at Wikipedia have an obligation to be objective about the matter and contextualize any such declarations of wrongness as being the opinion of usage writers or dictionaries or you, and not try to push it as "fact".

You use the argumentum ad verecundiam of the dictionaries and usage guides and the argumentum ad baculum that if we don't follow your rules then all writing will turn into meaningless drivel, both of which are fallacious as reasonable argument. You make continuous and forceful argument for why prescriptivism is legitimate, but yet you never answer my argument about the neutrality of stating the prescriptive POV as bald fact. I have already explained that descriptivism inherently comes from the NPOV because it only seeks to describe what people do and what other people say about it. However, you never really explain how ignoring the descriptive POV and making judgments about what is "correct" and what is "incorrect" is in any way neutral. So please explain how it is neutral to declare that using "literally" as hyperbole is "wrong" and how it doesn't matter that both I and Merriam-Webster disagree.

Finally, I fear you are beginning to accuse me of "misusing" the language. While I may argue for so-called "incorrect" usages not being labeled as such, I challenge you to find, in my writing, anywhere that your precious "rules of grammar and usage" have been violated.

--Nohat 17:22, 2004 Feb 6 (UTC)

Redundant does not mean useless or unable to perform its function. It means that there is an excess of something, or that something is "surplus to requirements" and no longer needed.
- Incorrect: Over-use of antibiotics risks making them redundant. (This should read: over-use of antibiotics risks making them worthless)
- Correct: A new pill that will instantly cure any illness has made antibiotics redundant. (Antibiotics could still be used to cure illnesses, but they are no longer needed because a better pill has been invented)
- Correct: The week before Christmas, the company made 75 workers redundant.

Because the so-called "Incorrect" usage is perhaps just poor word choice. If antibiotics are worthless, then what is necessary is none, and anything more than that would be "exceeding what is necessary".

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary

Main Entry: re·dun·dant; Pronunciation: -d&nt; Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin redundant-, redundans, present participle of redundare to overflow -- more at REDOUND; 1 a : exceeding what is necessary or normal : SUPERFLUOUS b : characterized by or containing an excess; specifically : using more words than necessary c : characterized by similarity or repetition <a group of particularly redundant brick buildings> d chiefly British : no longer needed for a job and hence laid off; 2 : PROFUSE, LAVISH; 3 : serving as a duplicate for preventing failure of an entire system (as a spacecraft) upon failure of a single component

--Nohat 19:25, 2004 Feb 5 (UTC)

I agree that "literally" was a bit tenuous and should be on disputed words. But, I think that redundant should be returned to the article. Before I edited this entry yesterday it read:

Redundant does not mean useless or unable to perform its function.
- Incorrect: Over-use of antibiotics risks making them redundant.
- Correct: A new pill that will instantly cure any illness has made antibiotics redundant.

... and I couldn't understand it. What was wrong with the incorrect version? I'm glad that my expanded explanation made it seem stupidly obvious, but I think this has value as an entry. fabiform | talk 20:37, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ewer... do some people actually pronounce this word the same as your? According to the OED, ewer is pronounced you-er, which is the only way I've ever heard it said. I suppose you might pronounce you're as you-er (although I would tend to write that pronunciation as "you are"), but yore and your are pronounced yor by most people, aren't they? fabiform | talk 21:42, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm with the OED, here, but can't remember every actually having occasion to speak the word. -- Jmabel 21:49, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Me neither. I read a lot of historical fiction though so I try to know the dictionary pronunciations so things sound right in my head. The number of different pronunciations I tried for cicisbeo before I looked it up! fabiform | talk 23:51, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I returned redundant to the article since no one raised any serious objections to its inclusion. Nohat says it's poor word choice, which of course it is, just like using flaunt for flout is poor word choice. The reason it deserves a place in the article is because people who use the non-standard meaning do not recognise it as such. Please don't remove it again without discussing it on this page. fabiform | talk 22:21, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think loth v. loathe should be moved to disputed. The OED has a few old quotes containing loathe as loth, but doesn't include it as an official variant. However, Merriam Webster does:
Main Entry: loath
Pronunciation: 'lOth, 'lO[th]
Variant(s): also loathe /'lO[th], 'lOth/
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English loth loathsome, from Old English lAth; akin to Old High German leid loathsome, Old Irish lius loathing; unwilling to do something contrary to one's ways of thinking ; RELUCTANT
synonym see DISINCLINED
- loath·ness noun

fabiform | talk 22:46, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I thought perhaps déjà vu would be a candidate for this page. People seem to often use it in casual conversation to note the reoccurance of something. The word of course actually refers to the feeling that a new event has already happened. JMD 03:57, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Anon user 163.1.137.127 started Misused Expressions, I've redirected it here. This is what the page contained. fabiform | talk 19:50, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Many expressions in English have varying use among various communities of speakers. We call some of these uses 'misuses', owning to our recognition of their difference. While it is an odd process becoming a norm of use, it can be sensed, even if the 'normalization' is hard to pinpoint except in retrospect, argues from the safety of currency. It is perfectly natural to attempt to point out the transgressions, not as an act of prevention but as an act of awareness. Then the act of (mis)using will be exposed, and such an act, still doable, can become more 'honest' and 'open' in its significantions. It is, therefore, perfectly normal to compile such a list as follows:

Begging the question as in That begs the question

Example: "Guevara's book contrasts much differently with the results of his life. So that begs the question, how true are the prescriptions he advocates in his writings?" Originally the phrase "begging the question" was associated with a codified logical fallacy, known among logicians also by its Latin name of petitio principii, roughly "Arguing to the beginning." This supposedly described an instance where a premise of an argument, that is, the "question" at hand, was taken as evidence for itself -- in other words, "begging" for the question, rather than "deserving" it (one supposes) through successful argument. So for instance: "Guevara's book is effective, because it promises much effectiveness for any leader who reads it."

I think this should be moved to List of frequently misused words in Standard English. This is more precise and NPOV, since the words in question are only being misused if the speaker is attempting to speak Standard English. Cadr

Myself

Am I wrong in noting that two of the three prescriptive examples of the reflexive use of myself are actually examples of using myself as an intensifier?

snip:

Standard (reflexive): I did it myself. I'll take it there myself. I want to enjoy myself.

The first could be rendered "I did it to myself." to demonstrate reflexivity. Otherwise, it is grammatically no different than saying "I myself did it." I'm not sure what to do with the second instance. The third, of course, is a fine example of reflexive pronoun use. I'm loathe to make this change, however, without a confirmation from a greater grammarian.

Compliment/Complement

I'm not a native English speaker, but I have a feeling that many English speaking people often confuse compliment and complement. I noticed this in magazines. Should it be added to this list? King Art 22:30, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hardly and Hard

My friend was an English teacher and told me his new pupils was always using "hardly" as "so", "firmly", "massive" (but it means "not so" etc., as I know), because "hard" means "so", "massive", "heavy". This could be added to the list, to. Gubbubu

Where/were

These two words are often confused. Imagine the sentence: Were they where released --Cfailde 11:00, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)

Criterion for inclusion

I think the current criterion for inclusion on this page is problematic because it's hard to verify and it's not exactly neutral:

The list that follows is meant to include only words whose misuse is deprecated by most usage writers, editors, and other arbiters of so-called "correct" English.

I intend to change this to:

The list that follows includes only words who are frequently used in a sense that is not supported by any dictionary definitions and is deprecated by most usage writers, editors, and other arbiters of so-called "correct" English.

with a HTML comment telling potential contributors:

This way we can be sure that Wikipedia takes no stance on the issue of what's legitimate or not in English. With a page title like "list of frequently misused English words", we must restrict inclusion on this page to only those words that no major dictionary accepts can be used in a way in which it might be occasionally mistakenly used. Anything else is disputed and belongs on the disputed usage page.Nohat 17:55, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

More removals

I removed "masterly/masterful" because of the following in Merriam-Webster, which clearly makes it disputed use, not misuse:

mas·ter·ful

1 a : inclined and usually competent to play the master b : suggestive of a domineering nature

2 : having or reflecting the power and skill of a master

usage Some commentators insist that use of masterful should be limited to sense 1 in order to preserve a distinction between it and masterly. The distinction is a modern one, excogitated by a 20th century pundit in disregard of the history of the word. Both words developed in a parallel manner but the earlier sense of masterly, equivalent to masterful 1, dropped out of use. Since masterly had but one sense, the pundit opined that it would be tidy if masterful were likewise limited to one sense and he forthwith condemned use of masterful 2 as an error. Sense 2 of masterful, which is slightly older than the sense of masterly intended to replace it, has continued in reputable use all along; it cannot rationally be called an error.

Nohat 04:46, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)