eggcorns

[Gillette]

Regard
Regardless - without regard
Irregardless - no regard for language ( personal pet peeve )

 

[D_alex8]

Yes eggcorns. See forth paragraph in the link to see how the word was coined.

It's a "spell-as-you-speak error".

*wonders if he is the only person still wondering whether or not this was intended as irony*

 

[Lordpendragon]

:soapbox:

Verbalising - aaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhh

Corporate speak yuk.

If the root of the word is latin - ise

If the root of the word is greek - ize

I admit that I don't know what the rule is for a combined greek and latin word like - televisualise - I'm going with the last part being latin so -ise. No doubt, someone will happily put me straight.

Same with -ible and -able - know your ancient latin and greek and the type of verbs.

Here's some common ibles

accessible audible collapsible combustible compatible comprehensible contemptible convertible credible crucible defensible digestible discernible edible eligible fallible feasible flexible forcible gullible horrible inadmissible incorrigible incorruptible indelible indestructible indivisible inexhaustible inexpressible intelligible invincible irascible irrepressible irresistible legible negligible ostensible perceptible permissible plausible possible reducible reprehensible responsible reversible sensible susceptible tangible terrible visible

Go with -able otherwise.

 

[Gillette]

*wonders if he is the only person still wondering whether or not this was intended as irony*

No, I axed(asked) myself the same question.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Now go get your one-horse soap, and SLAY!

I yam vatchink you closely, DC.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

*wonders if he is the only person still wondering whether or not this was intended as irony*

Now, this man is back ... big time. Spellchecks -- and brains -- at the ready, everyone.

 

[D_Sheffield Thongbynder]

So, annoying as the phenomenon may initially seem, there are enough examples of its influence on accepted contemporary English usage as to provide a strong historical precedent for it as an active factor in lexicographical evolution. Indeed, the OED has recently added a footnote about the use of "your" for "you're" (based on people writing what they hear rather than analyzing the contextual grammar), stating that the "incorrect" usage is so commonplace as to have perhaps earned a certain amount of validity for future consideration as a contested yet acceptable variant form. See, I knew you'd be pleased to hear about that, Stronzo!

Usage is a slippery slope, Alex8. If advocates for lingistic purity didn't put the brakes on wholesale change, the language would return to the chaotic spellings and grammatical constructions in pre-Samuel Johnson England. Granted, the language is a fluid means of communciation and must change, but the distinction between levels of usage and dialects preferred in educated circles is worth making. Plattdeutsch, anyone?

 

[Lordpendragon]

Plattdeutsch, anyone?

Naw - shifted continents years ago.

 

[Ethyl]

Complected/Complexioned

Arrgh!

 

[naughty]

Has anyone ever thought about how bigoted the term "jewelry" sounds?
(Sweetie this is not to you because you used the term as an example) I just happened to notice it. Jew- elry.

jewlery / jewelry

 

[Lordpendragon]

Jocale (latin) - Jouel (French) Jewel (English)

Nothing to worry about.

The latin means a plaything.

 

[baseball99]

working in a big city, has exposed me to language and terms that i cant understand how they came about.....

my all time pet peeve is probably 'babydaddy'.....no one warned me of this term before i started practicing and at first i corrected and said baby's daddy and people kept looking at me strangely. Eventually a student told me babydaddy is an actual term.....it has become my pet peeve and nemesis i think

 

[D_Sheffield Thongbynder]

Naw - shifted continents years ago.

I'm still reeling from the Great Vowel Shift.

 

[dong20]

Usage is a slippery slope, Alex8. If advocates for lingistic purity didn't put the brakes on wholesale change, the language would return to the chaotic spellings and grammatical constructions in pre-Samuel Johnson England. Granted, the language is a fluid means of communciation and must change, but the distinction between levels of usage and dialects preferred in educated circles is worth making. Plattdeutsch, anyone?

Advocates for lingusitic purity - Académie Française types you mean? Screw 'em.:tongue: There will always has been and always will be a distinction between the English in a 'pure', stable and academic form and that which is in day to day use. It's the same in most languages. I used to feel the opposite but experience has turned my attitiude on this pretty much on it's head.

"A Dictionary of the English Language" was both vital and highly influencial though I remain unconvinced that Johnson alone had quite the effect he is often credited with. His work offered little assistance for pronounciation and many of his spelling recommendations were tediously conservative for example.

On a global or even national scale there will always be variations but I have no real problems understanding Americans, Aussies or Kiwis. Even when an accent is extreme it's usually only a matter of paying close attention and a little 'tuning in'.

Many scholars suggested that English dialects in the US/Australia/NZ etc would over time (less than 100 years) become mutually unitelligable. This, in a time when communcation took weeks or months was perhaps understandable but they were wrong then, and I believe they would be wrong now. The problem has nothing like the severity of spoken Cantonese for example.

I agree with you that unrestrained change may well be dangerous, but then surely so would be a misplaced (if well intentioned) attempt to place a stranglehold on continuous and inevitable linguistic evolution. I love the English languange in no small part because it is so flexible and thus resilient.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Has anyone ever thought about how bigoted the term "jewelry" sounds?
(Sweetie this is not to you because you used the term as an example) I just happened to notice it. Jew- elry.

Naughty, I would not think that the proper (jewel-ry) could sound as bigoted as the improper (jew-lery)... the improper sounds to me like the activities of a jew, much as "tom-foolery" sounds like the activities of a tom-fool.

(I'm still waiting to have dinner with you and my partner and Lex sometime, since we are in such geographic closeness...)

 

[DC_DEEP]

By the way, Stronzo, has anyone ever told you that you are excellent Master Bait? They should all be flocking to you by now....

 

[D_Sheffield Thongbynder]

Advocates for lingusitic purity - Académie Française types you mean? Screw 'em.:tongue: There will always has been and always will be a distinction between the English in a 'pure', stable and academic form and that which is in day to day use. It's the same in most languages. I used to feel the opposite but experience has turned my attitiude on this pretty much on it's head.

"A Dictionary of the English Language" was both vital and highly influencial though I remain unconvinced that Johnson alone had quite the effect he is often credited with. His work offered little assistance for pronounciation and many of his spelling recommendations were tediously conservative for example.

On a global or even national scale there will always be variations but I have no real problems understanding Americans, Aussies or Kiwis. Even when an accent is extreme it's usually only a matter of paying close attention and a little 'tuning in'.

Many scholars suggested that English dialects in the US/Australia/NZ etc would over time (less than 100 years) become mutually unitelligable. This, in a time when communcation took weeks or months was perhaps understandable but they were wrong then, and I believe they would be wrong now. The problem has nothing like the severity of spoken Cantonese for example.

I agree with you that unrestrained change may well be dangerous, but then surely so would be a misplaced (if well intentioned) attempt to place a stranglehold on continuous and inevitable linguistic evolution. I love the English languange in no small part because it is so flexible and thus resilient.

I think we're on the same page, dong20. I'm glad we don't follow in France's footsteps in how we treat our language. I welcome the changes and fluidity, and lexicographers do a commendable job in observing changes in the language before giving them their imprimatur. I think we need to monitor the changes to prevent legitmizing (or should I say legitimise? :wink: )every mangling of accepted usage that crops up. The network dialect of American newscasters TV is the closest thing we have to the Academie Francaise, and I much prefer it that way.

 

[B_Stronzo]

It's jewellery, oh proponent of American-spelt corruptions of the English language! :biggrin1:

Your psychic abilities are showing mon amour. That pronunciation goes right up my Yankee arse like none other! How anyone can get "jewl ery" out of "jewelry" defies comprehension.

So, annoying as the phenomenon may initially seem, there are enough examples of its influence on accepted contemporary English usage as to provide a strong historical precedent for it as an active factor in lexicographical evolution. Indeed, the OED has recently added a footnote about the use of "your" for "you're" (based on people writing what they hear rather than analyzing the contextual grammar), stating that the "incorrect" usage is so commonplace as to have perhaps earned a certain amount of validity for future consideration as a contested yet acceptable variant form. See, I knew you'd be pleased to hear about that, Stronzo!

NO FUCKING WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'll hear none of it. In fact I didn't even read it through. :tongue:

By the way, Stronzo, has anyone ever told you that you are excellent Master Bait? They should all be flocking to you by now....

Why yes DC... yes they have. I was never quite sure what they meant but you've clarified it nicely for me.

My tedious cousin (with whom I used to practise said activity to a fault as an adolescent) was prone to say "the slave waits while the master baits") :33:

I'm not sure what role he cast me in...

 

[B_Stronzo]

Careful, sweet-cheeks, some of those are the same in Boston or Atlanta... "Park the car" for example... :smile:

I do say "Pahhhk the cahhh" but the a's more flattened then what you'll hear Markie Mark say before his accent redo. There's almost a clenched jaw in the pronunciation. Hell, my mother (though we laugh hysterically when she says it) still insists she's "going dahncing"

But please remember the old Boston accent is more closely akin to its English precedent than the others which "litter" this land. I recall once listening to a Southern gent who lived on some Island off the coast of the Carolinas. There was effectively NO DIFFERENCE in his accent from the accent of my grandparent's generation.

And as for that delectable nut you mention, it is a southern tree. I grew up calling it, and hearing it called, "pe-CAWN." The first time I hear someone call it "PEE-can", I thought "Don't they have indoor plumbing up north? Why would he have to pee in a can?" It's not an affectation, I think I would trust the pronunciation of the locals where the tree grows. Now go get your one-horse soap, and SLAY!

lol@ "slay" ....


Well.. from a family who insisted I say "cahn't" for "can't" and "tomahto" for "tomato" I say they were calling back to their own pronunciational backgrounds when they said "R? It's PEE' can and nothing else" to say it otherwise is "mutton parading as lamb" (love that expression... :biggrin1

I'm still open for more thorough research however.

Now.. though a bit off topic.... shall we address the ever-annoying overuse of "hopefully"??

 

[joyboytoy79]

Peeve #1: It's "are" house. (Wisconsinites are to blame for this one, not knowing how to correctly pronounce "our")

Peeve #2: Should "of", would "of", could "of"

Peeve #3: The "too" of you are wrong.

Peeve #4: Can I "axe" you question?

Peeve # 5: He asked for "and" apple.