Let’s get right to the point. Misusing words makes you look less intelligent than you really are. If you misuse words in your writing, it can damage your credibility and diminish the point you’re trying to make. Even worse, it could completely change the meaning of the sentence. What follows is a list of the 32 most commonly misused words and phrases.

1. Accept/Except- Although these two words sound alike (they’re homophones), they have two completely different meanings. “Accept” means to willingly receive something (accept a present.) “Except” means to exclude something (I’ll take all of the books except the one with the red cover.)

2. Affect/Effect- The way you “affect” someone can have an “effect” on them. “Affect” is usually a verb and “Effect” is a noun.

3. Alright- If you use “alright,” go to the chalkboard and write “Alright is not a word” 100 times.

4. Capital/Capitol- “Capitol” generally refers to an official building. “Capital” can mean the city which serves as a seat of government or money or property owned by a company. “Capital” can also mean “punishable by death.”

5. Complement/Compliment- I often must compliment my wife on how her love for cooking perfectly complements my love for grocery shopping.

6. Comprise/Compose- The article I’m composing comprises 32 parts.

7. Could Of- Of the 32 mistakes on this list, this is the one that bothers me most. It’s “could have” not “could of.” When you hear people talking, they’re saying “could’ve.” Got it?

8. Desert/Dessert- A desert is a hot, dry patch of sand. Dessert, on the other hand, is the sweet, fatty substance you eat at the end of your meal.

9. Discreet/Discrete- We can break people into two discrete (separate) groups, the discreet (secretive) and indiscreet.

10. Emigrate/Immigrate- If I leave this country to move to Europe, the leaving is emigrating and the arriving is immigrating.

11. Elicit/Illicit- Some people post illicit things on message boards to elicit outrageous reactions from others.

12. Farther/Further- Farther is used for physical distance, whereas further means to a greater degree.

13. Fewer/Less- Use fewer when referring to something that can be counted one-by-one. Use less when it’s something that doesn’t lend itself to a simple numeric amount.

14. Flair/Flare- A flair is a talent, while a flare is a burst (of anger, fire, etc.)

15. i.e/e.g- I.e. is used to say “in other words.” E.g. is used in place of “for example.”

16. Inflammable- Don’t let the prefix confuse you, if something is inflammable it can catch on fire.

17. It’s/Its- It’s= it is. Its=a possessive pronoun meaning of it or belonging to. Whatever you do, please don’t use its’.

18. Imply/Infer- A reader infers what an author implies. In other words, when you imply something, you hint at it. When you infer something, you draw a conclusion based on clues.

19. Literally- If you say “His head literally exploded because he was so mad!” then we should see brains splattered on the ceiling.

20. Lose/Loose- If your pants are too loose you may lose them. That would be almost as embarrassing as misusing these two words.

21. Moral/Morale- Morals are something you want to teach your kids. If your team’s morale is low, you need to do something to boost their confidence.

22. Percent/Percentage- The word “percent” should only be used when a specific number is given. “Percentage” is more of a general term.

23. Stationary/Stationery- You are stationary when you aren’t moving. Stationery is something you write on.

24. Then/Than- “Then” is another word for “after.” Incidentally, the word “then” makes for boring writing. “Than” is a comparative word (e.g. I am smarter than you).

25. There/Their/They’re- There are few things as frustrating as when I look at my students’ writing and they’re misusing these words in their writing.

26. Unique- Something can’t be “kind of unique” or even “very unique.” It’s either one-of-a-kind or it isn’t. There is no in between when it comes to unique.

27. Your/You’re- If I had a nickel for every time I saw this one… yeah, you know the rest. “Your” shows ownership and you’re is a contraction meaning “you are.” Get it right.

28. To/Too/Two- Two is a number. “To” is used in instances such as, “I am going to the store.” If you are supposed to use the word “too,” try inserting the word “extra” or “also.” If one of those fits, you need to also add the extra “o” to make “too.”

29. Lie/Lay- After you lay the books on the table, go lie down on the couch.

30. Sit/Set- Set your drink on the table and sit in your chair. Got it?

31. Whose/Who’s- Whose is the possessive form of who. Who’s is a contraction meaning “who is.”

32. Allude/Elude- When someone alludes to something in conversation (indirectly references), if you aren’t paying attention the meaning may elude you (escape you).

Which misused words drive you crazy? Share them in the replies.

---

Source:
http://helptutorservices.com/blog/the-32-most-commonly-misused-words-and-phrases/

This one that really annoys me, and I'm sorry to say, it's used so much, especially on American TV that it's becoming commonplace these days. "Different than"
a subject can be different TO an object or different FROM an object; both are equally acceptable.
However 'than' defines a quantitive comparison. i.e. something can be more than something else, taller than something else, darker than something else, but NOT different than something else.

“Americans say ‘Scuba-diving is different from snorkeling,’ the British sometimes say ‘different to,’ and those who don’t know any better say ‘different than.’”
-Paul Brians, linguistic pundit

Quote

“different than” is always wrong when comparing two nouns.

The only proper use of “different than” on the GMAT is when the sentence compares a noun and a clause.  For example, “The Manhattan skyline is different than it was twenty years ago.”  Here, we are comparing the Manhattan skyline and the clause “it was twenty years ago.”  Though perfectly acceptable, the sentence can still be reworked to avoid “different than”: “The Manhattan skyline is different from what it was twenty years ago.”  Now we are once again comparing two nouns: the Manhattan skyline and “what it was twenty years ago.”

I had to go google that (still learning about grammar). I mean I HATE it when people use then and than wrong....I havent heard "different than" but I always hear "different then" .

---

Source: http://www.manhattangmat.com/strategy-series-gmat-grammar.cfm

I'm fixin' to kick your ass.

LtStorm (06:28pm Wed, Sep  2, 2009)

I'm fixin' to kick your ass.

That annoys me too.

Alright is a word. People who stroke themselves into a frenzy about it not being a word are the same people who go all "Ain't isn't a word!"

Deal with it. Language changes. If you're going to be a twat about it, go back to Old English. And I don't mean Shakespeare. I mean the shit that Beowulf was written in.

That said, "For all intensive purposes" and the like? Those piss me off to no end.

Andre Vienne (06:34pm Wed, Sep  2, 2009)

That said, "For all intensive purposes" and the like? Those piss me off to no end.

For all intensive porpoises, it is a doggy dog world.

There are lots of things that would be acceptable in speech, but not in the written form (unless forming part of dialogue of course.) I'd insist that "ain't" is one of those.
Certain things are just as annoying when spoken. I once had a boss, who would listen to an explanation of something, and then ask me to be "More pacific"  (Still makes me shudder to remember it.) He'd get puzzled when I'd deliberately take him literally and repeat the same explanation, only I'd speak a lot calmer and quieter.

"Ain't" has its purposes. Though, I will say this: The best second person plural that English has is y'all. End of story.

Ugh. I know people who do the 'More pacific' thing too.

Andre Vienne (07:48pm Wed, Sep  2, 2009)

"Ain't" has its purposes. Though, I will say this: The best second person plural that English has is y'all. End of story.

Ugh. I know people who do the 'More pacific' thing too.

If you look at the origins of English, "y'all" isn't necessary at all, since "You" was originally the formal or plural version of the second person pronoun, the singular informal being "Thee" (or "Thou" depending on the tense.)

Of course, unlike other European languages, English has done away with formal/informal pronouns, and has dispensed with the plural/singular distinction in the second person altogether.

It seems that "You" is adequate for most purposes. Stating "You all" emphasizes the plural in a specific way. It doesn't really add much by abbreviating that to "Y'all".

"You all" is fine, but it sounds forced no matter who says it. "Y'all" sounds far more natural, and while not acceptable to Northern white folk, is generally the best choice. Especially over that abomination of language that is "You guys."

As for linguistics, especially historical linguistics, sure, it may have worked that way in the 1600s, but we're talking about current, applied linguistics here. The language that people use today, not the mental masturbations of people whose relationship to current day language manifests as an extended rant about how kids these days are doing it wrong. It is like a mathematician consultant on an engineering project; there is little ground to be had for them in the practical application department.

Not to mention that "You" is only adequate for second person in formal contexts. In the informal arena, it is never adequate and just leads to confusion and wasted time explaining how you were talking about everyone in the group, rather than simply using a "Y'all" with a hand gesture.

alright  then. that was pretty fun to read.

I just read "undo attention" ...

Andre Vienne (09:51pm Wed, Sep  2, 2009)

"You all" is fine, but it sounds forced no matter who says it. "Y'all" sounds far more natural, and while not acceptable to Northern white folk, is generally the best choice.

That may be the way you see it, but you'll find that in the world outside of your environment, the opposite is the case.

You talk about "Northern white folk", but there's a whole English speaking world outside of the United States, where  I assure you that saying "You all" wouldn't be out of place, whereas "Y'all" would definitely raise eyebrows.

It's not a matter of whether it's "acceptable to Northern white folk" it's a question of whether or not the terms we use in writing or in talking are recognised and accepted in a worldwide arena.

"Y'all" is colloquial slang, but seems reasonable to you because of where you live. I'm from Yorkshire in the UK, but I wouldn't think of using "I'll si'thee" instead of "goodbye" in written or spoken language, unless I was deliberately talking in diallect.

As for my other comments about plural & formal pronouns in English, I was just trying to make the point that feeling the need for things like "Y'all" was once catered for in English as it still is in French and German, but that our language has developed to shake off the need for them. I wasn't suggesting that we still go around talking or even writing in 'proper' traditional English.

Snowy Owl (01:08am Thu, Sep  3, 2009)

That may be the way you see it, but you'll find that in the world outside of your environment, the opposite is the case.

I could say the same for anything you've said so far, especially concerning the 'taking-into-account-Middle-English' related statements, which few people care to do. Many groups have formed their own second person plural which is proper and necessary in an informal manner. This is especially common in the US, where there are also "All y'all", "Youse", and "Yinz". To argue that the second person plural isn't useful because you don't see a need for it due to it having been excised is obviously not the case.

Snowy Owl (01:08am Thu, Sep  3, 2009)

You talk about "Northern white folk", but there's a whole English speaking world outside of the United States, where  I assure you that saying "You all" wouldn't be out of place, whereas "Y'all" would definitely raise eyebrows.

They have their own dialectical differences. While I admit, "y'all" is hardly acceptable to them, "you all" would still sound awkward to someone who has a proper, flowing second person plural.

Snowy Owl (01:08am Thu, Sep  3, 2009)

It's not a matter of whether it's "acceptable to Northern white folk" it's a question of whether or not the terms we use in writing or in talking are recognised and accepted in a worldwide arena.

Easy enough. I've talked to folks from England to the Phillipines. They all understand 'y'all'. It does not impede communication. I understand some of their colloqualisms, and have even appropriated some of them. Some of them, in turn, have started using mine. And again, the Internet is another place where the second person plural becomes necessary. Not to mention that dialectical differences are also desired, as the average person would likely want to be told apart from her brother oceans away.

Many colloquialisms have made it into the worldwide arena. Are you honestly advocating that as long as something is recognized and accepted worldwide that it is a valid method of communication?

That seems disturbingly short-sighted of you, and is a whole Pandora's box of things you don't want to open.

Snowy Owl (01:08am Thu, Sep  3, 2009)

"Y'all" is colloquial slang, but seems reasonable to you because of where you live. I'm from Yorkshire in the UK, but I wouldn't think of using "I'll si'thee" instead of "goodbye" in written or spoken language, unless I was deliberately talking in diallect.

That is because English has a perfectly good stash of goodbyes. Also a "Did you eat yet?" instead of "'jeet?"

It does not have a standardized second person plural beyond the ambiguous 'You', which as we have seen, is worthless for communication unless in a formal context. Almost any second person plural sounds reasonable to me, I'll admit, since the 'standard' leaves so much to be desired. Either people interested in the propagation and "wellbeing" of this thieving mutt language should take notice and put forth an actual working solution or at least be constructive about it, rather than acting the lie that is "It's fine the way it is!"

A second person plural beyond the awkward "You" that nobody uses outside of formal context (and not even then) is necessary for communication, no matter what it is. When that is accepted and codified, I'll use it. Until then, 'Y'all' is as acceptable as 'you rotten rat bastards' to me.

Snowy Owl (01:08am Thu, Sep  3, 2009)

As for my other comments about plural & formal pronouns in English, I was just trying to make the point that feeling the need for things like "Y'all" was once catered for in English as it still is in French and German, but that our language has developed to shake off the need for them. I wasn't suggesting that we still go around talking or even writing in 'proper' traditional English.

Maybe it shook off the need for them elsewhere, but if it didn't need them, why would so many linguistic groups make one? Maybe the people who codified it didn't see the need for it, but the second person plural is necessary. If it wasn't, there wouldn't chewing gum holding it on to the language as a whole.

Snowy Owl (01:08am Thu, Sep  3, 2009)

Andre Vienne (09:51pm Wed, Sep  2, 2009)

"You all" is fine, but it sounds forced no matter who says it. "Y'all" sounds far more natural, and while not acceptable to Northern white folk, is generally the best choice.

That may be the way you see it, but you'll find that in the world outside of your environment, the opposite is the case.

You talk about "Northern white folk", but there's a whole English speaking world outside of the United States, where  I assure you that saying "You all" wouldn't be out of place, whereas "Y'all" would definitely raise eyebrows.

Speaking from a position where I've literally travelled most of the world, and seen other cultures reactions:
1) Other countries don't really say "you all" all that much (with the exception of England). For example, Australians are more likely to say "you lot" or "you guys". "You all" feels awkward and people don't often say it. The British people I've been around are more likely to say "you all" but they also say "you lot" and "you guys". The English speaking Germans I met didnt use "you lot" but did use "you guys".

2) "Y'all" is always going to raise eyebrows, end of story.

3) I havent asked anyone else, but I feel that "y'all" is more natural to say than "you all"...and I had never even HEARD the word till I turned 16 (or older). Though I won't use it (except to mock), that's how I feel.

I'm more likely to walk into a room and go:
What are you lot up to then?!
Instead of:
What are you all up to then?!
Or even:
What are y'all up to then?!

Andre Vienne (11:21am Thu, Sep  3, 2009)

That is because English has a perfectly good stash of goodbyes. Also a "Did you eat yet?" instead of "'jeet?"

LOL I say "didja eat?" or "ja eat?" (yes, that's different to jeet).

Andre Vienne (11:21am Thu, Sep  3, 2009)

Snowy Owl (01:08am Thu, Sep  3, 2009)

As for my other comments about plural & formal pronouns in English, I was just trying to make the point that feeling the need for things like "Y'all" was once catered for in English as it still is in French and German, but that our language has developed to shake off the need for them. I wasn't suggesting that we still go around talking or even writing in 'proper' traditional English.

Maybe it shook off the need for them elsewhere, but if it didn't need them, why would so many linguistic groups make one? Maybe the people who codified it didn't see the need for it, but the second person plural is necessary. If it wasn't, there wouldn't chewing gum holding it on to the language as a whole.

Language does evolve and change, but that doesn't mean words are thrown out. Y'all is hard grained into the culture here, and I'd hazard a guess that it was never used in other countries (unless by an Americanised person).

In Australia we use "Fairdinkum!" instead of "Oh Really?" which is typical of Americans to reply with...while other countries would use something else, like German's use "Oh?" or "Yeah?" (or a combination of both) for example.

While it can be argued the word is redundant, it's our word and we're damn proud of it. I'm also proud to say "Bloody Oath" instead of "Hell Yeah" or "You best believe it!"....and I think the American Y'all is the same.

Every country has their own phrasing.
An Australian is more likely to drop in,
A British person is most likely to pop in,
An American is most likely to drop by or stop by.

Neither is wrong, but one may be uncomfortable to say. One thing that irks me is Aussies say "How have you been?" or "howya bin?"...but Americans say "How have you bin?". It's so awkward I wanna smack them.

I say "What's crackin', you bastards?" But that's just me, and it's not an all-the-time thing.

I've not been putting down the use of slang phrases in any way, but the original objection was to using 'alright' in written English, although it clearly is not a real word. The counter argument was that "y'all" was somehow more acceptable.

My point was that both are acceptable in the correct context, i.e. in dialogue of a particular type by a particular person (i.e. a character who might be expected to use such terms,) or when trying to express colloquialisms but not in normal writing.

When in narrative or descriptive text, 'alright' should be replaced by 'all right' - the proper English form. I think we're all agreed on that! By the same guidelines, "y'all" should never be used unless the writer is attempting to put across a narrative in colloquial style.

I wasn't suggesting that anybody, (even British people) go around saying "Hello you all" Because obviously we don't - but "you all" is the normal form in context, for example: "I'd like to share this with you all" emphasises the plural second person, and is far better than "I'd like to share this with y'all" since the former is non-colloquial English and the latter is clearly not. (However, using "I'd like to share this with all of you" removes the need to pluralize the pronoun altogether.)

My point about English not having a plural second person pronoun, was simply that: a statement that we used to have one, that we don't have one any more, and that we seem to manage without one in most cases. I wasn't professing that English is better off or worse off without one.


It boils down to the fact that everyone has a different style, but styles sometimes have to vary to take into account the context that we're writing in; sometimes it's acceptable to incorporate slang terms into the style of writing; sometimes it isn't.

I suppose I can agree with most of that. Though i will say that English does need a second person plural pronoun, and that we'd be better off with one.

Andre Vienne (11:21am Thu, Sep  3, 2009)

Many colloquialisms have made it into the worldwide arena. Are you honestly advocating that as long as something is recognized and accepted worldwide that it is a valid method of communication?

Surely Andre, it's you that's advocating that. You've been stating all along that colloquialisms are acceptable. I've been suggesting using proper English in the written form; you've been championing the use of slang terms whether they be universally accepted or not.

Remember that this forum was originally about misuse of terms, words and phrases in English, and looking at the list of examples Jade quoted, we're obviously talking about written English, so it's not a question about what's acceptable in communication, it's more specifically about what's acceptable in written communication.

Andre Vienne (04:42pm Thu, Sep  3, 2009)

I suppose I can agree with most of that. Though i will say that English does need a second person plural pronoun, and that we'd be better off with one.

But if we accept that it does, it needs to be a universally understood and accepted pronoun.

Unfortunately language doesn't work like that. Nobody is ever going to invent or impose a 2nd person plural pronoun.

The language may develop one day to re-incorporate one, and who knows? it might be "y'all" but until it is, it wouldn't be proper (& it wouldn't even 'read right' in most cases) if we all started using it in all our written material.

I suppose we're just living in the unlucky centuries when we have to cope without one.

In standard written communication, we'll say 99% of current Internet-based communication counts as 'standard', then yes, I'd say that anything goes in standard communication, whether they're universally accepted or not. The sheer volume of text being exchanged makes colloqual text-based communication more standard than formal writing. Not that it's good, but that it is acceptable, yes.

Not to mention that, what we are doing now, what is done in IRC, what is done in instant messaging and on every forum on the Internet, is written. So, what is acceptable in written communication again?

I know I've been arguing this. That is why I indicated that it would be a bad idea to pursue that subject to support your argument.

No group will impose one, but people use them and have invented them. Language is crowdsourced material at its finest. As for it 'reading right', I've seen it do so in most cases. It's still proper in the majority of written material, using Internet standard, for the most part.

We don't have to cope without one. Using one of the variety about now isn't a problem. They're still there, some picky people just refuse to use them for whatever reason.

I think you know that when I emphasized written communication, I was talking about producing written works, where we have to accept that someone will actually give a shit about our vocabulary, our grammar and our syntax.

I was clearly NOT referring to instant messaging, chat forums, or even SMS texts. Where the rules we impose upon ourselves are clearly a lot less stringent. I think you realise this, so each of your points above is arguing your case, but against points that I never even made in the first place.

I wasn't saying that because something is recognised universally that it's valid to use in the language. I was stating that it isn't valid to use in the language unless it's first recognized and accepted universally. There's a subtle difference between those two points if you think about it.
 
As for the English language 'needing' a 2nd person plural pronoun:

1) There clearly isn't one, outside of the slang terms, regional words and colloquialisms we've already mentioned.

2) Look at the works of just about any serious writer, and you'll find they manage to get across the idea of whether they're referring to a single 2nd person, or multiple 2nd persons, perfectly well WITHOUT resorting to the use of the aforementioned slang terms.

This in itself proves that the English language can manage perfectly well without the 2nd person plural.

It's how we use the language in other ways that means that we have other ways to express our ideas. There isn't a single idea that English speaking writers cannot put across simply because there isn't a specific word especially for it.

Snowy Owl (06:00pm Thu, Sep  3, 2009)

I think you know that when I emphasized written communication, I was talking about producing written works, where we have to accept that someone will actually give a shit about our vocabulary, our grammar and our syntax.

And that isn't implied in standard internet communication? Do you honestly think that no one cares how someone writes on the Internet?

There is a good variety of space between 'completely formal' and 'teenage girl abbreviated text message'. Colloquialisms manage to be acceptable at least as far up as print magazines. That is the very least. I tend to not bother with much print media anymore, considering that they are utterly worthless for much of anything, however, it is still worth noting that the argument for second person is worthless in more formal writing, as using second person is verboten anyway in much academic literature.

Of course, considering the shitty examples of writing I have seen get decent grades, I think you expect too much from places where someone will supposedly "give a shit" about our vocabulary.

Snowy Owl (06:00pm Thu, Sep  3, 2009)

I was clearly NOT referring to instant messaging, chat forums, or even SMS texts. Where the rules we impose upon ourselves are clearly a lot less stringent. I think you realise this, so each of your points above is arguing your case, but against points that I never even made in the first place.

That depends. I have imposed rules upon myself that are far more stringent than what many others have imposed upon them in many written formats, including academic papers. Have you seen the atrocious quality of the average college paper? It is nauseating.

Snowy Owl (06:00pm Thu, Sep  3, 2009)

I wasn't saying that because something is recognised universally that it's valid to use in the language. I was stating that it isn't valid to use in the language unless it's first recognized and accepted universally. There's a subtle difference between those two points if you think about it.

Very little is recognized universally in anything, let alone language. Considering that you brought up that standards are different in other areas, I think you would understand that.
 

Snowy Owl (06:00pm Thu, Sep  3, 2009)

As for the English language 'needing' a 2nd person plural pronoun:

1) There clearly isn't one, outside of the slang terms, regional words and colloquialisms we've already mentioned.

I thought there was, when you said that 'you' counted. But this is worthless pedantry and semantics, I admit.

Snowy Owl (06:00pm Thu, Sep  3, 2009)

2) Look at the works of just about any serious writer, and you'll find they manage to get across the idea of whether they're referring to a single 2nd person, or multiple 2nd persons, perfectly well WITHOUT resorting to the use of the aforementioned slang terms.

Look at the works of any serious writer, and you will find that most of them don't use the second person at all, except in dialogue. In which, as we have said, it is acceptable to use colloquialisms and dialectical things. Not to mention that few even have a need to reference multiple second persons, considering that reading is generally a solitary activity and a simple 'you' will suffice. Again, the Internet is different.

Snowy Owl (06:00pm Thu, Sep  3, 2009)

This in itself proves that the English language can manage perfectly well without the 2nd person plural.

Sure, as long as you don't count things where there can conceivably be multiple second persons.

Snowy Owl (06:00pm Thu, Sep  3, 2009)

It's how we use the language in other ways that means that we have other ways to express our ideas. There isn't a single idea that English speaking writers cannot put across simply because there isn't a specific word especially for it.

No, but a single word helps, which is why a lot of them are stolen from other languages to shore up problems that English has. Others are repurposed or constructed out of nothing just to allow for useful communication of ideas without sounding like a bad machine translation. The computer industry is full of this.

ow..my brain hurts!

I love yousall... (stolen from Jeff Fenech... no wonder people wanna hit him ...)

niffah (08:20pm Thu, Sep  3, 2009)

ow..my brain hurts!

I love yousall... (stolen from Jeff Fenech... no wonder people wanna hit him ...)

That's even worse than "mines" instead of "mine".

Okay maybe not, but I still wanna smack someone .

I didn't know not to use the word "alright" in writing. I would think it sounds too repetitive. Another words I also get confused are "could of" and "unique". I used to write "kind of unique", which sounds cliche now. Wow, I sure learned something from this post.

I should print this list and affix it to my monitor.

'imply/infer'--really? That actually makes sense. I can totally see that these two are mixed up!
For me , when I am writing I mentally slow down when approaching ' affect/effect'; I triple check it when I use these to make sure I've done it right!

I can relate to this post so much. I often misuse words and phrases, and usually there aren't much people who notice those mistakes. They are mistaken as well.

I think this is a pretty big issue, because to be a writer, you should be able to use proper grammar and use words and phrases in their correct forms.

Thanks for this post!

I'm going to chime in with the "alright" group and say that it's okay to use it at this point:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alright

I don't even consider it to be "slang" at this point either.

That being said, I can't really think of any "formal" writing where using "alright" would ever come into play in the first place. If it's formal, you're likely to choose a different set of words....and if it's informal where "alright" would sound "alright," then it's likely a fine place to be anyway.

I have A LOT of writing and grammar pet peeves, but this simply isn't one of them that bothers me.

Saying 'pacific' instead of 'specific' drives me completely up the wall!
Oh, and people who want to 'axe' me a question (in all fairness, I believe that is regional. I am from Louisiana originally and you hear that quite a bit down there).

I was fortunate to have some exceptional English teachers in school and several went through these words - and others.

Granted the English language is confusing, but really! I just can't decide if it is laziness or ignorance - or a little of both.

Quote

7. Could Of- Of the 32 mistakes on this list, this is the one that bothers me most. It’s “could have” not “could of.” When you hear people talking, they’re saying “could’ve.” Got it?


24. Then/Than- “Then” is another word for “after.” Incidentally, the word “then” makes for boring writing. “Than” is a comparative word (e.g. I am smarter than you).

Those are the worst ever. Hatred.

"Oh my god, you are worse then him!"

"I went shopping than I got some fries."

Shut up.

On the east coast of America, many people use the word "out maut fraud." I have no idea how that even originated. People use out maut to mean that is an extreme case of fraud. The even funnier part about is most people use this bizarre phrase only when they are completely extending the truth about something. For example, my father uses it if he thinks the hotel's late check out prices are too high.

Wandering, how is "out maut fraud" pronounced? I haven't heard this phrase before. Could it be from something like "out 'n' out fraud" maybe? Or how is "maut" pronounced?

The following from the list is the one that really makes my blood boil. Probably because I hear it at least once an hour and I can't help but think if the speaker or writer just slowed down for a moment they would hear and/or see the error.

7. Could Of- Of the 32 mistakes on this list, this is the one that bothers me most. It’s “could have” not “could of.” When you hear people talking, they’re saying “could’ve.” Got it?