A minor but extremely annoying language peeve:
The straps that one uses to steer horses are called reins.
The period of time during which some sort of ruler holds authority is a reign.
Thus, when one wishes to reassert control over something that is running unchecked, one would “rein it in.” The time during which the unchecked influence is having malign effects might be called a “reign of terror.”
It’s a subtle and important distinction. It’s also not something that spell-check will help you with.
Consider the comments an open thread for confused homonym peeves.
What about “cleave”? The same word — and same spelling — can mean either splitting in two or adhering to something.
Though frankly I’d be happy if people could just figure out the difference between “to” and “too” (come on folks, these are two and three-letter words). Or the verbs “lose” and “loose”. Grrrr.
It’s annoying that “read” and “read” (past tense) are spelled the same but pronounced differently… though if you somehow get that one wrong in your writing, no one will ever know. 🙂
Another one that struck me recently — not quite misleading homonyms, but idioms; these phrases are not at all opposite in meaning:
“I can help myself”
“I can’t help myself”
It’s not quite a homonym peeve, but I often hear people say “hone in on” instead of “home in on”. We’ve lost a lot with the neglect of homing pigeons as a mode of communication! I wish we could rein that in.
Your write, of coarse, that homonym confusion is the lynch pen of language abuse. I’ve almost given up on myriad.
My biggest pet peeve is people using “lead” as the past tense of “to lead.” It’s “led,” people! “Lead” with a “short e” is what fishing weights are made of. I work as a technical writer for a university, and I see this usage from lots of faculty, in addition to other people who should know better.
Queue/Cue
Hoard/horde.
People who say “doesn’t jive” rather than “doesn’t jibe” drive me absolutely bonkers. I hear it all the time on the radio (and on some SciBlogs).
There/their, its/it’s, and similar misuses make me despair for education. Any marginally educated person should know the difference between these, but there are obviously many uneducated persons with degrees these days. I think much of this comes from the fact that people don’t read nearly enough, and rely on hearing, which is unreliable. English has an inordinate number of homophones, and English teachers are simply doing an inadequate job of teaching, perhaps because many of them haven’t learned what they need to know.
When did “buck naked” become “butt naked”?
Your/You’re
..and, along with there and their comes they’re.
The one that always gets me is the number of people that don’t know how to use the word comprise; “the parts comprise the whole”.
That last sentence reminds me of countable versus uncountable things. How many times have you heard a TV announcer say “..a large amount of people..”.
All of the above. It’s “give free rein to,” not “free reign.”
The really basic ones bother me most, like lose/loose, your/you’re, there/their/they’re, its/it’s (PZ Myers screws that one up all the time).
Jive/jibe is a bit more esoteric, but cetainly bothersome.
Etc. etc. It’s a rough life for an internet pedant.
Favorite grammatical pet peeve:
When people put the subject right at the end of the unnecessarily long and convoluted sentence, it makes it hard to read.
Hone/ home and jive/ jibe remind me of a sports announcing peeve: it’s become distressingly common for announcers to say that a player in the midst of a slump of some sort needs to “get untracked.”
I blame this on Billy Packer, because I generally don’t like him, and he uses it a lot. I can understand how this evolved from a mispronunciation of “get on track,” but the new version makes no sense– when a train “gets untracked,” it’s a catastrophe.
It’s sort of the sports version of “for all intensive purposes.”
homonyms: their fun!
My pet peeve is compliment vs. complement.
I’ve also recently noted a disturbing increase in people who think that the bubbly beverage is “champaign.” They should all be exiled to Illinois.
What drives me nuts is the general attitude, that getting things right doesn’t even seem to matter. As long as you can more or less understand what’s being said we should all be fine with any spelling errors, and we’re all just being mean and pedantic if we point out mistakes.
(The uncharitable view would be that yes, if you are reading at the level of a second-grader, and reading out every word loud, then it probably doesn’t make much of a difference.
It really throws me off, though – perhaps it’s something that comes with reading a lot, and reading a lot because you like reading books. Apparently not everyone does this.)
I have a typographical pet peeve too. People using the (acute? grave?) accent ´ instead of the apostrophe ‘ in writing. It is not the same, dammit.
Affect/Effect – even see it in these blogs. “The effects of this change will affect all our salaries”. ‘Affect’ as a noun refers to facial expressions.
The most cringe-worthy however is the ‘security message’ played every time a WSF ferry leaves the dock. They’ve had this message for a good seven years now, and it is read by several local figures, most of whom are news broadcasters. One would think they might have complained, but noooo. These snippets illustrate:
“life-jackets may be found under seats or at either end of the ferry” – well, I personally would feel a lot safer if they used the definite phrase ‘are to’ or ‘will’ instead of the indefinite “may” which implies its opposite “or then again may not”. There are other variations too that could be more positive.
“Smoking is prohibited on board any Washington State Ferry”. There are two ways of saying this to correctly impart the imperative, and this is not one of them. “Smoking is prohibited on board all …” is one, and “Smoking is not permitted on board any ….” is the other.
This is a DHS security announcement, not the winner of an amateur 6th grade essay competition. It should be the result of the work of an expert in communications and the use of language so that there can be no ambiguity of interpretation. Several of the personalities performing the readings are – or should be – such experts, yet they read it without hesitation. I have to assume then that a DHS flunky is standing behind them during the recording to ensure word-perfect rendition, and corrections are not allowed because that would be admitting a mistake.
principle/principal
It’s a particular pet peeve of mine, as I am an economist and we use both words all the time, especially “principal-agent problem”.
qualifying a superlative:
very/quite unique
often used on the BBC’s Radio 4 channel.
Naturally my mind is now empty of any of the other examples I’ve been filing away.
“break/brake”
– and –
“site/cite/sight”
Both seen far too often in postings on most blogs.
“these ones”
I shudder to even write it.
Unless someone is referring to a stack of one dollar bills, it’s just appallingly ignorant.
Oh, oh! I thought of another one that drives me crazy: no one seems to know the word “pique”, so they write about their curiosity being “peaked” (or even “peeked”, which makes even less sense).
@Gray Gaffer #17: might want to look up affect again — both affect and effect are both verbs and nouns with multiple definitions.
BTW, to highlight that resource directly — I’ll bet all of your pet peeves are listed here!
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/errors.html
And here’s the *correct* way to respond when someone expresses regret over accidentally flubbing one of these:
Getting “complimentary” breakfast in a hotel vs. “complementary” information to fill in the gaps in our understanding.
Oh, I didn’t see that #15 had already scooped me.
Here’s another one then. People who say “I could care less”. No, the phrase is “I couldn’t care less”! It’s supposed to mean that you really really don’t give a s–t, so saying “could” instead of “couldn’t” takes away from the force of the remark.
As a fun aside…
Complete the following sentence (in print): “Two, too, to, two; these are the four…” what? Short of spelling it phonetically, how could this be written?
On track: I am driven to distraction by the linguistic abuse committed by my co-workers. “To/too” all too frequently, followed in frequency by failures at forming proper contractions or possessives. Also, “there/their”.
The thing at the start of the book is a Foreword.
It is not a Forward.
They’re, their, and there. I cannot complain loudly enough about these.
“Would of” vs. “would have”
Too many people get this wrong these days. I believe it is due to bad pronunciation. Perhaps it’s a “new homonym.”
In writing,I’m only really irritated by the basic “there/their/they’re”,”could of” instead of “could have”,etc.What makes me wince is when people say “more higher” or “more faster”.It’s just painful.
Don’t forget that perennial favorite, pore/pour. It doesn’t come up often – apparently poring over a book has fallen out of favor – but it sure does grate when it happens.
Regarding lead/led, I once searched Wikipedia for “lead” and found quite a few instances.
All of those and more.
My ex, back in high school, actually got a college brochure that said, “we hope we’ve peaked your interest.” She wrote them and told them she would never even consider attending a school that would make such a mistake in their representative material, and perhaps they would like to correct it.
My absolute favorite has to be using apostrophe’s to form plural’s, though. Makes me want to strangle the author with “their” keyboard cord.
See also: Bob the Angry Flower (you idiots)
A commonly occurring non-word concatenation of two actual words is “alot” — as in “I see alot of errors in the writings of my high school students.”
Since my parents both had degrees in English Literature, with honors, from major universities, and we lived in New York City where my parents were in the book editing business, we subscribed to The New York Times. I grew up hearing my parents arguing about minor errors of grammar in New York Times articles. By the time that my father was retired, and in his 80s, he complained that the errors had become so frequent and blatant as to even creep into headlines of The New York Times, and he considered it it the end of civilization.
This blog thread, excellent though it is, reminded me of how very much I miss my parents.
Forgot to mention: the pseudo-word “alot” may be common because of the homonym:
allot
Pronunciation:
ə-ˈlät
Function:
transitive verb
Inflected Form(s):
al·lot·ted; al·lot·ting
Etymology:
Middle English alotten, from Anglo-French aloter, from a- (from Latin ad-) + lot, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English hlot lot
Date:
15th century
1 : to assign as a share or portion
2 : to distribute by or as if by lot
In a screenwriting course that my wife and I took, the professor carefully distingished between the homonyms whose meanings are so utterly different:
REAL
versus
REEL
Rob #22, yes, but they are still not equivalent – effecting this change will affect other things. Reversing the effect and affect words changes the meaning.
Remember Gallagher? Had a great riff on spelling and pronunciation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2acXjdPzlY – does not have the -ough bit but has the rest.
Mute vs moot, in addition to the aforementioned loose/lose and jive/jibe.
#35 reminds me of Joey on an episode of Friends.
Joey: All right, Rach. The big question is, “does he like you?” All right? Because if he doesn’t like you, this is all a moo point.
Rachel: Huh. A moo point?
Joey: Yeah, it’s like a cow’s opinion. It just doesn’t matter. It’s moo.
Rachel: Have I been living with him for too long, or did that all just make sense?
principle vs principal
#3 I assume you mean lynch pin.
vice/vise, as I study the installation of my new vise for the workbench
I’m a bit conflicted on this topic, because while I have plenty of my own peeves (most of which have been mentioned in other comments), I also often ask myself “what’s the difference?”
If enough people use language the “wrong” way, that way becomes standard, and it’s no longer wrong. Who gets hurt?
Several of the peeves which are mentioned in the comments above fall into this category — they have become accepted. (Most of these, though, are not homonyms.)
“These ones” … I see no problem with this.
“alot” … well, “alright” is pretty much accepted at this point, so I don’t see the point in resisting “alot”.
“very unique” … refusing to accept this usage, I think, stems from an overly restrictive definition of “unique”. Often the word is used simply to mean “unusual”.
Meanwhile, some homonyms do fit the bill — “hone in” — I don’t see a problem with this one. I may be insane on this point, but to me “home in” and “hone in” mean two different (though similar) things. To “home in” on something is to have one’s attention narrowly targeted in pursuit. To “hone in” means to go after something which you don’t have a fair right to. It has a connotation of “mooching” which “home in” does not.
And, just because I also have to mention my own peeve — people who write “…and wallah! you’re done!”
In addition to many of the examples given above, there are phrases where the writer has forgotten the origin. For instance, “toe the line” is often miswritten as “tow the line”.
I also have a pet peeve about people using place names which are neither English nor in the dominant local language (if in doubt, use the local spelling). For instance, the capital of Switzerland is Bern, never Berne unless you happen to be writing in French (Bern is in the German-speaking part of Switzerland). Similarly (although this is a spoken rather than written language issue), the J in Beijing should be pronounced like an English J (which is how it is pronounced in Chinese) rather than a French J as many people do.
My dog woke me up at 3:56 a.m. and gently reminded me that I’d left a slice of cooked bacon in a pan, intending to present it to her on a bed of kibble. So I did so.
While the crunching ensued, I watched a well-known local news anchor babble about the breaking story of the military group which claims a Coup d’État in Guinea — and describing what one could see on the map — while quite obviously the map read “Ghana.” Not even a homonym. Peeved me anyway.
My dog then asked me if she could go outside. Once there, she surveyed the easternmost rose garden, complained that it was still too cold, asked to come back inside, and gave me permission to go back to bed.
“Say,” I commented, “didn’t you evolve from wolves, who walk in circles before lying down, in order to make a circular hole in the snow, and then lie on the frozen tundra grasses with a partial snow wall blocking the wind?”
“Why are you asking me?” she said, walking in circles before lying down. “Do I look like Charles Darwin to you? I don’t believe in Evolution. I’m dubious about Relativity. But at least it’s in our union contracts to believe in Quantum Mechanics.”
And she was asleep before I was.
If enough people use language the “wrong” way, that way becomes standard, and it’s no longer wrong. Who gets hurt?
I’ve heard that argument before, and it makes a lot of sense, but part of me still doesn’t buy it. Words don’t just convey meaning, but also history. While “you’re” to “ur”, or “whet my appetite” to “wet my appetite” may be a natural progression, I can’t help but feel that something is being lost.
You could make the same argument for punctuation: if non-standard becomes standard, who gets hurt? That makes perfect sense until you get a text message that reads: “i helped my uncle jack off a horse” (don’t ask me why you would get a text like that). Are we talking about your Uncle Jack’s troubles dismounting, or some unsavory task you had down at the farm.
Or the hastily written note: “About the nuclear launch I ordered: don’t. wait for me to get there.”
Imagine the fallout if you leave out the period.
RE: #32 Jonathan Vos Post
Your comment reminded me of my high school English teacher. He had a poorly hand-drawn picture of a 2-headed dog posted above the chalkboard with the word ‘alot’ written underneath it to remind us that we weren’t to include 2-headed dogs in our essays.
Rein and reign aren’t homonyms. They are homophones.
My local PBS station has a really annoying commercial to entice people to volunteer. It says “There are many ways to support WXYZ, and all of them don’t involve sending money.” Every time I hear it, I cringe. Do they REALLY want to tell their viewers that none of the ways to support the station involve sending in money?
I also get very irked when I hear people talking about “the Democratic-controlled Congress” or “the Democrat Party”. I mean, really. Just because the Republicans use the same word for both noun and adjective doesn’t mean Democrat and Democratic are interchangeable! (I’ve heard this error over and over again on NPR, which really drives me crazy.)
Another one that bugs me is using hyphens in in compound verb modifiers (e.g., “a quickly-flowing stream” or “a slowly-driven car”).
And I know the Brits don’t use serial commas, but I think they’re absolutely necessary. (Otherwise you end up with sentences like this one, which a friend of mine found a couple of years ago: “I’d like to thank my parents, Jesus and Ayn Rand.”)
I could go on…