What Is The Most Commonly Misspelled Word On Message Boards

Is the entity of a website an "on" or an "in"?

Place the link "on" your website.

Place the link "in" your website.

"hmm, are there multiple 'brothers' or multiple 'laws'?"

"Can you add this widget to the web sight?"

It is site! How can people get that wrong?

I love using "irregardless" just to get under people's skin ;)

brother-in-laws vs. brothers-in-law

"hmm, are there multiple 'brothers' or multiple 'laws'?"

Good one!

So how would you signify possession? With an "'s" after brother or law? -- It sounds funny when using your logic, though it is probably correct. Personally I would introduce him into the conversation first and use "his" for possession just to avoid the conundrum!

-- Zak

put the link AT your website :)

Really? True a website is a place, but I tend to think of it more like a box. Are you putting the link "on" the box or "in" the box? I personally thought "on" was correct.

"We will be placing your link ...on... our website..." (as opposed to "in" or "at".)

The problem is so bad, there are school teachers who were raised here, learned to speak badly, and are now teaching the same bad diction to students. Give it a few generations, and it will be called a dialect.

some gems:

"brung" is the past tense of "bring"

"never done none" - double, triple, and even quadruple negatives are common.

And my favourite:
"boughten". it's the new past tense of "buy". As in, "I've boughten those before".

"Can you add this widget to the web sight?"

Oh! I HATE that one!

What if you have several of them and they owned a company? Brothers-in-law's company? Brothers'-in-law company?

Ok -- I just developed a new phobia. Now I have the fear of talking about my brother-in-law in public.

But why are ignoramuses the ones who get to effect change? :(

As Churchill famously commented when one of his memos was corrected by a civil servant,

"this is nonsense up with which I will not put."

Always loved that one. But, FWIW, it appears that one did not originate with Churchill. (See [itre.cis.upenn.edu...]

Those were very interesting links, thanks. The 'singular their' does indeed have a long history, however in linguistics a long history does not imply correct current usage. Many regional forms of speech are remnants of previous historical forms but are still held as incorrect.

Appears to me you did not take a very close look as esllou's links. According to your take, the "incorrect" usage applies to many literary luminaries over the course of several centuries (till at least the mid 20th century), and in such a variety of uses that they can hardly be dismissed as "regionalisms". I think I'd take their opinion over a group of stodgy, Latinizing grammarians most any day.

it would be poor practice to apply a comma only where it is required to avoid a[m]biguity.

I don't follow you here. Exactly why is this "poor practice"? Is not avoiding of ambiguity one of the reasons for using commas? Why should it not at times be the "only" reason?

When I search for "purpose of commas" I find things like:

"The primary purpose of the comma is to indicate to a reader when a sentence calls for a brief pause. Additionally, the comma defines, supports, and reinforces various grammatical structures and grammatical units."

If I have read that last part correctly, one of the chief reasons we use commas is PRECISELY to clearly mark grammatical structures and units, that is, to help remove ambiguity!

In other words, to quote from another list of rules for comma usage, "(Rule 8) Use a comma to avoid confusion."

Yes, a comma before the penultimate item in a is sometimes necessary to remove ambiguity, but I do not accept the pedantic inference that I must, therefore, always include the serial comma.

I assumed the USA! I see from your profile that it is a short hop over the border.

My pet hate is "normalcy", instead of "normality". A classic US invention (on par with the verb golfing)that is now used by everyone from Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw to George and Laura Bush, and almost daily by all of them!

"Normalcy" is so common that Webster's have actually decided it is now valid English! I guess we call it progress...."ain't it gr8" ;)

"Normalcy" is so common that Webster's have actually decided it is now valid English!

Actually, the words "normality" and "normalcy" are practically the same age (mid-nineteenth century). There is nothing in the history or formation of either word, indeed no particular reason (except, perhaps, snobbery) to insist that one of them is "correct" and the other is not.
(See [randomhouse.com...]

Now I do understand that the word is looked down on in British English. But again, there is no objective reason for assuming that a particular British or American linguistic preference is superior (whether of vocabulary/usage, pronunciation, grammatical form, spelling, or what-have-you). Further, even if one generally avoids the word "normalcy" (and frankly, I can't recall when I last used either term!), there are contexts where it has a connotation that "normality" lacks, viz., of concern with restoring the status quo (a connotation largely attributable to Harding's 1920 presidential campaign for "a return to normalcy").

Same may be said of your distaste for "golfing" (rather than "playing golf" I presume). If the term serves a useful purpose and communicates clearly, what is the complaint? I assume you are thinking the expression ought to parallel "playing tennis" and the like. But language, thankfully, does not always insist on such bland consistency. In this particular case, consider also that the one who plays the latter sport is called a "tennis player", whereas a devotee of the former can be a "golfer" (as well as "golf player"). If you allow this form then, in keeping with the general use of the agent suffix "-er" , there should be nothing odd about deriving a related verb form -- a "golfer" is "one who golfs". Of course, we could impose consistency across the board, and nix the British term "footballer" (Americans always say "football player"). But there's no need for that either. This too is simply a variation in usage. Neither the British nor American preference is "the" correct one.

Now if you want to concern yourself with truly abused terms, I suggest concentrating not on words that may sound odd to your ear, but on such things as the mistaken use of "enormity" as if it meant "immensity". Here at least there is an issue of clear communication.

these are considered to be official french words ( so official street signs show the way to the "parking" and supermarkets sell various brands all marked "shampooing" ) and not mistaken usage of english and in the case of shampoo I think it is actually hindi .or maybe gudjerati/gudjarati in origin?

From my mother tounge I am used to complicated "cases", not as many as Latin, but quite enough. Comes naturally to me, though, since I grew up with it. No sweat.

Now, here's some incongruity in the English language that I have not quite come to terms with:

When do you use "you and me" versus "you and I"?

Example:
Singular: He gave it to me.
Plural: He gave it to my husband and me /..or../ my husband and I

Singular: I am going on holiday.
Plural: My friend and I /..or../ my friend and me are going on holiday?

Which is correct? Sometimes I hear phrases like that and the hairs on my neck stand up, because my native grammatical training would have told me to use exactly the other form.

Quite a hard one to crack for a non-native English speaker.

Opinions?

Tey

//*** Was Oscar Wilde? Was Thornton Wilder? Did Alistair Cooke? ***//

Singular: He gave it to me.
Plural: He gave it to my husband and me /..or../ my husband and I

Singular: I am going on holiday.
Plural: My friend and I /..or../ my friend and me are going on holiday?

Dative (objective) case makes the first Plural example read as "He gave it to my husband and me.

Nominative (subjective) case make the second Plural example read as "My friend and I are going on holiday."

Dative (objective) case . . . "He gave it to my husband and me.

I'm not so sure how very useful it is to even speak of a "dative" case in English as much as all the non-nominative (subject) forms have fallen together. But your use of the pronouns is certainly correct.

I think what confuses people is that many were drilled in elementary school NOT to use the compound subject "Jim and me" (or "me and Jim"!)as kids are prone to do. But it was all JUST drilling, without understanding. They NEVER had it explained to them that this rule was ONLY for subjects. So they became accustomed to using "and I" for all such compounds. Hence many educated people use the incorrect form, and it even starts to "sound" right to them... all of which compounds the problem (no pun intended)!

I always taught my own kids (now teenagers) to try it in their heads without the first part (drop "Jim and"). I think they finally get it.

Of course, there IS at least one widely admitted exception: "It's [me/us/him/her/them]." Most of us pedantic types probably allow this "colloquial" form simply because "It is I" sounds stilted. But in light of the fact that we do NOT any longer have a full case structure in English I'm not quite sure the "rule" it is supposed to be violating (of using the same case for both nouns linked by copulative verbs like "to be, seem, become") is based on an altogether accurate description of how modern English grammatical categories function

I'm not so sure how very useful it is to even speak of a "dative" case in English as much as all the non-nominative (subject) forms have fallen together. But your use of the pronouns is certainly correct.

It helps us little pea brains differentiate it from the accusative case (that's slang for "direct object") . ;)

"It is I" sounds stilted.

Sounding stilted is what sets us apart from the ignoramuses (see message #71). :)

Back to miss uses and or miss spellings ( not always on websites )..

This one is one of my "red rags"

"Scapegoat" ( in french "bouc emissiaire" ) used in both languages to mean "one who is blamed" when in fact the scapegoat or bouc emissaire was the animal who was used ( still is in some places ) to lead the other animals into the slaughter house ..thus they are fooled into thinking "this place" is safe ..the goat is of course not killed and so for him "this place" is not personally threatening and he can repeat the walk daily or hourly ..

The problem being "one who is blamed" or who takes the blame for another should be the "whipping boy" in french "souffre-douleur"..an actual child who was punished for the misdemeanors of an aristocratic or royal child who could not be punished..

I must hear or read the former used when the latter is meant at least once per day in France ( unfortunately someone here "Furetière" centuries ago mistranslated the leviticus texts to french and the mistake has stuck even into the encyclopedias , dictionaries and the french wiki! the same mistake was made even earlier in the 13th century! ) and once per month in english ( Holman Hunt incorrectly used the scapegoat the title of his picture ) broadcasting ..website use is less widespread ..one of the things that makes me back out faster than a flash intro does for most people..

Scapegoat or bouc emissaire means neither "outcast" nor "sacrificial animal" ..but the goat which "escapes" ..or the "emissary" goat who gets sent in first..

Which a little thought on the meaning of words even by long dead and some still living scholars would have shewn.

It isn't because most people use the wrong word for what they mean to describe that "majority use" makes it the right word ..even if they have done so for hundreds of years ..

BTW ..I thought that the plural of ignoramus ..was ignoramii? like virus and virii ;)

Singular: He gave it to me.
Plural: He gave it to my husband and me /..or../ my husband and I

Singular: I am going on holiday.
Plural: My friend and I /..or../ my friend and me are going on holiday?

If you use 'me' when it is just you, you also use it when there is another person involved. Ditto for 'I'.

So, its "He gave it to my husband and me" and "My friend and I are going on holiday."

Simple really.

BTW ..I thought that the plural of ignoramus ..was ignoramii? like virus and virii

Haha, I never thought of you as an ignoramus before. I'll just continue with a good thought. :)

Anyway, according to Will Rogers, everybody's ignorant - (you know the rest).

A classic US invention (on par with the verb golfing)

If you hate the word 'golfing', I'll bet you really hate the word 'pickayunish'.
Wait, that isn't a word. Yet. ;)

I thought that the plural of ignoramus ..was ignoramii? like virus and virii ;)

[edited by: lawman at 11:58 pm (utc) on Jan. 5, 2006]
[edit reason] But it's not a WW word. [/edit]

I'll just continue with a good thought.:)

Ma didn't raise no ignoramii 'n' our house ..just us sheamii :)

jus wundrin out loud ..would it be avouii in the plural or avoués..à ton avis?