Talk:List of commonly misused English words/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Appropriateness

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:

1. 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.
2. Nobody seemed to care about the apparent "contradiction" in the multiple senses until the early 20th century.
3. 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.
4. 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)

Allow me to urge the recapture of "literally" - I have seen too many absurd statements like "I literally had a conversation with my ancestors" (university professor in a cemetery) (WPTD-TV promo). If this isn't by definition "misuse", then all is lost.

--Nuance 4 03:39, 2014 Nov 27 (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.

The second could be rewritten as "I will myself take it there."

---

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)

That's a good one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.189 (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2015 (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)

I was surprised they aren't already on the list. Unfortunately I don't have the literary knowledge to add that entry myself (get lost when the grammarians talk of transititve verbs, pronouns and the like). sheridan 00:40, 2005 Mar 10 (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:

<!-- note to editors: please only include words on this list that are commonly used in a way that no definition in a major dictionary supports. Please check at least the Merriam-Webster dictionary at [6] and the American Heritage Dictionary [7]. Please put words where the usage is disputed—when some people deprecate a usage but others, such as dictionaries, allow it— on the page List of English words with disputed usage-->

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)

Hmm...your minimum criteria is inclusion in one of two American dictionaries. What's your problem with, say, the OED? If M-W and American Heritage are your two benchmarks, then this article should be renamed to "List of frequently misused words in American English". SigPig 03:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think the OED is freely available online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.208.134 (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It can be cited nonetheless. --Nricardo (talk) 05:52, 2 July 2009 (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)

I removed "moot", which said:

• Moot is a verb meaning "to discuss"; as an adjective, it means "already discussed" or "already dealt with", as a "moot point" or "moot question". It does not mean "unimportant" or "irrelevant".

because of the following in Merriam-Webster:

moot

Function: adjective

1 a : open to question : DEBATABLE b : subjected to discussion : DISPUTED

2 : deprived of practical significance : made abstract or purely academic

In particular, the definition "deprived of practical significance" seems to contract the assertion "it does not mean 'unimportant' or 'irrelevant'". Nohat 18:07, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. The MW definition implies that a past action or discussion has rendered a topic moot, where it was previously germane. The common misuse is to mean unimportant as a more-or-less permanent condition. At the very least this word should be in disputed usage. David Brooks 18:36, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

'moot' confusion comes from moot court, a pretend court where students held a case over something that was 'mooted', but the point was of no purpose other than for discussion. So a 'moot' point can mean 'no longer worthy of discussion', but unfortunately it can also mean the opposite. There isn't much point listing words which have contradictory meanings.

Nothing about the definition 'deprived of practical significance' implies that there was necessarily a change in relevance. For example, describing a child as "deprived" doesn't necessitate that he once had things that he is now deprived of. The only thing that is important for this sense of "moot" is that something could potentially be practically significant, but isn't. Something could have always been deprived of practical significance. In other words, such a thing would be 'unimportant' or 'irrelevant'. Nohat

Illegal/Invalid

This is another candidate, made popular by computer programmers. Illegal specifically means "prohibited by law" in 'correct' English rather than indicating an incorrect or inappropriate request.

Incorrect: "Windows has performed an illegal operation" Correct: "Windows has performed an invalid operation'

Sadly computing people have enshrined the incorrect usage into several standards documents.

Merriam-Webster says "not according to or authorized by law : UNLAWFUL, ILLICIT; also : not sanctioned by official rules (as of a game)"

American Heritage Dictionary says "... Prohibited by official rules: an illegal pass in football.... Unacceptable to or not performable by a computer: an illegal operation."

wordnet says "prohibited by law or by official or accepted rules; an illegal chess move"

Seems like an OK usage to me. None of those dictionaries had usage notes or anything either. Nohat 16:14, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Insert non-formatted text here

---

Medics may use "chronic" to mean a long-term affliction, but some people use the word to mean painful. "John Wayne was an infamous actor." is deprecated as non-standard, but have you seen his acting? www.danon.co.uk

---

How is this any different from List of English words with disputed usage? They both cover the same topic, and at least that one doesn't have a POV title. -Branddobbe 19:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Not really! 'Illegal' in the sense of a computer program is to say that the rules governing the internal operation of the computer itself have been breached, which is ok to use when programmers are talking to each other, which was the case before computers appeared in the home. In the modern word though, telling a user that the computer has done something illegal might imply that the actual law of the land has been breached, causing panic. So it's more a case of choosing the best word to communicate with a user, rather than a mistake in english. Anyway your example is a little pedantic, I'm not sure if your example about an illegal pass is supposed to be correct or incorrect.108.171.128.189 (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Non-standard?

As far as I can see, many of so-called "non-standard" examples in this list are just plain old-fashioned WRONG. Calling them "non-standard" makes it sound as if there is some matter of opinion involved, when there is not. Some examples, picked at random are:

"I should of known that the store would be closed."
"The bicycle tire had lost all it's pressure."
"The rain effected our plans for the day."

In my view these are "non-standard" English in pretty much the same way as "2 + 3 = 6" is "non-standard" arithmetic. I am sorely tempted to go through this list changing many instances of "non-standard" to "incorrect". If there's any good reason why I shouldn't then please let me know! Matt 01:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC).

"Non-standard" is a better designation because there is serious dispute as to whether any English usage can be definitively described as correct and incorrect, especially widely-used ones. Besides, there is nothing inaccurate about calling them "non-standard," as they are indeed usages, and those usages are indeed not the standard ones. At worst it is an understatement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.208.134 (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Matt, I think readers might be confused that "non-standard" means that they're acceptable in some circumstances. They're incorrect, not non-standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.126.52 (talk) 06:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Various non-standard usages of English are acceptable in some circumstances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomez2002 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I think using Disputed and Undisputed would allow for the fact that the language is constantly changing without suggesting that the Disputed use is correct in some circumstances. 129.237.28.201 (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Those are covered in List of English words with disputed usage. Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

... continued

I now see that there is a separate article List of English words with disputed usage, and I am getting somewhat confused about the different labels used. This is my suggestion.

• The "misused words" list should, as the title suggests, contain only clear-cut errors, where there is no serious dispute about usage. All the examples should be marked either "correct" or "incorrect". There is no need for any of the apologetic waffle about "prescriptive grammarians". You do not need to be a "prescriptive grammarian" to distinguish correctly between "accept" and "except", you just need to have reached a basic standard of literacy.

• The "disputed words" page should contain words where there is some significant difference of opinion about what is acceptable usage and what isn't, such as in the case of "whoever"/"whomever" (currently on the "misuse" list).

• I am confused about the intended meaning of the labels "standard" and "non-standard" in these lists. To me, "non-standard English" means regional forms, dialect, slang etc. It is neither misuse nor disputed use, and so should be in neither list. For example, in some parts of England (and possibly elsewhere) people use the word "youse" as a plural of "you". To me, this is non-standard English. It isn't "wrong" or "disputed", it's just the local dialect. "Ain't" is (in my view) another clear example of non-standard English.

There are many shades of grey here, and different people might put different words in different categories. But there needs to be some attempt at a definition of what these labels mean, and this is my attempt.

Matt 18:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC).

I agree with your assessment. -lethe ^talk 21:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I entirely disagree. It is an inherently POV idea to label any usage as "incorrect". Language correctness is not something that can be measured objectively, but only in reference to a norm or standard. Therefore what you think is "incorrect" is only incorrect relative to what you hold to be the standard. Not everyone agrees on what the standard is, obviously, because if they did, then there wouldn't be people who violated the standard. The only NPOV way to describe these uses is to label them as non-standard, and then ensure that the standard is explicitly defined.

The categories here are in fact explicitly defined with a clear boundary as to what is a "disputed usage" and what is a "non-standard usage". Any usage which is sanctioned at all, by any major dictionary is a "disputed usage" and doesn't belong on this page. Only those usages which are not sanctioned by any major dictionary are "non-standard usage". The standard is therefore the one set forth by the major English dictionaries.

This is not a hard standard and the line is clear. A usage is "non-standard" only if no major English dictionary has any definition which allows the usage. If any major dictionary has a definition which allows the usage, then it is merely "disputed" and belongs elsewhere. Nohat 01:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to clarify that a word also belongs on this list if the only definitions of it in major dictionaries explicitly label it as "non-standard." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.208.134 (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand the argument against classifying usage as "correct" and "incorrect", but in the instance of "flesh and flush" in this listing, the "non-standard" example has the potential to be misleading. A reader could interpret the "non-standard" usage in "This outline is incomplete and must be flushed out" as idiomatic, whereas really "This outline is incomplete and must be fleshed out." could be interpreted as idiomatic or non-standard and use of "flush" is not what is conventionally understood to be correct usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhpolsky (talk • contribs) 03:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

move

I think it wuld make much more sense to move the article to "List of frequently confused English words", since every sinle instance involve the mix-up of similar words. Circeus 16:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• I was wondering if it might make sense to combine this article with List of English words with disputed usage, perhaps as a "misused, confused and disputed" list. Reason being that there are a number of borderline cases where it is not clear (to me) which list is appropriate. There is also some overlap with List of commonly confused homonyms. Matt 12:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC).

"Barbaric" vs "Barbarous"

At Merriam-Webster Online:

"Main Entry: bar·bar·ic...3 : BARBAROUS 3 "[8]

which links to

"Main Entry: bar·ba·rous...3 : mercilessly harsh or cruel" [9]

i.e. Barbaric(3) = Barbarous(3) = "mercilessly harsh or cruel". No usage note, no "informal" or "non-standard" flag; thus, this is now a disputed usage. SigPig 03:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Cite

I included "cite" in the sight/site explanation. I thought this would be relevant because I have seen a few people confuse these homophones to great embarrassment. Canadian0 (talk)

Blimp

According to wikipedia, a blimp is a type of dirigible. We need proof that it is commonly used for the wrong type of dirigible, eg a Zeppelin. Neither seem common enough to be commonly miss-used. I would guess 99% of use is for Goodyear type Blimps , which is correct.

• blimp and dirigible. A blimp is a nonrigid, buoyant airship. A dirigible is a self-propelled lighter-than-air craft with directional control surfaces.
  • Standard: Blimps are a type of Airship.
  • Non-standard: The Hindenburg disaster took place on May 6, 1937 as the German blimp Hindenburg caught fire and was destroyed within one minute while attempting to dock with its mooring mast at Lakehurst Naval Air Station.

"State" vs. "Status"

I'm missing this. Can someone add this please? 77.22.106.173 (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Adverse and averse

I must state that the definition of adverse also states

Acting or serving to oppose; antagonistic: adverse criticism.

in the American Heritage Dictionary (4ed).

This page needs to consider a broader range of definitions than those in the OED, as English is an evolving language and once a word becomes accepted in a dictionary as meaning something contrary to the beliefs of the lexicologists who patrol this page, it should be edited.

Also a note should be added as to the accuracy of this page, as it does contain points of view, primarily because the language interpretation functions in our brains are subjective, and because English has no central governing body on language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.139.6.117 (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Anarchy Seems a Bit Weasely, No?

The explanation on the usage of the word "anarchy" (and "anarchist," etc) seems a bit biased. I feel its a political argument being made more than a neutral, encyclopedic explanation of word use. The links in the paragraph point readers toward articles about anarchist thought, etc. While this is somewhat relevant, I feel the scope of the definition is far too broad. I assume good faith in the definition and welcome comment. Yours, Auranor (talk) 11:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppress suppress

can 'Oppress, Suppress' be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedzdog (talk • contribs) 14:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we use a better example for cant?

For the current one, someone could take "Heralds do not pun; they cant" to mean "Heralds do not pun; they cannot". I'm not sure how to use it well, so can anyone make a replacement? Halofan333 (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Disputed

There seem to be a lot of entries in this list that are completely unsourced and do not appear to meet any sort of criteria for being "commonly misused" (like aggravate and mitigate?). Seems like a good sweeping of all non-sourced material is needed. There is also a lot of crossover with disputed usage. If the usage is disputed, it isn't being misused. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

• If anyone's cleaning up, I still totally disagree that uses like "The rain effected our plans for the day" should be labelled as "non-standard". This gives the impression that they might be acceptable in some variety of English other than the standard one. This is not the case. Usages like this are unequivocally wrong in every variety of English, and should be labelled as such. 81.129.128.108 (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC).

Unless of course, you were part of a group who was standing in an empty swimming pool, and you were waiting for a water source to fill it up so that you could swim together all day. In that case the rain could quite easily effect your plans for the day, rather than affect them. ;) --92.27.195.153 (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you been looking at http://xkcd.com/326/ by any chance? You do realise this is meant as satire :-) Jowa fan (talk) 04:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

What you mean is that usages like this are unequivocally wrong in every standard variety of English—therefore they are non-standard usages. That is the only NPOV way to describe it. nohat (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I mean exactly what I said. They are wrong in every variety of English. There is no variety of English in which they are correct. 86.184.108.192 (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Being "right" or "wrong" is something that would have to be declared by some authority. Since English has no such authority it makes no sense to talk of "correct" English—usages from native speakers are either standard or they're nonstandard. nohat (talk) 08:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Some things, including "The rain effected our plan", are simply wrong, wrong and wrong. 86.181.170.34 (talk) 04:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Good vs Well

One thing I have noticed a lot is that people tend to mix up good and well, primarily in saying "good" instead of "well", for example, in "you did good". This does not make sense, since good is not an adverb but is instead an adjective, and is very commonly used as such. Unless I am behind the times and such usage is now in fact correct, I feel this should be added. As a note, I haven't actually added it since I'm not entirely (only mostly) sure about the correctness of this.--99.24.162.139 (talk) 04:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Approximant versus approximative(ly) or approximation

The noun Approximant has a fairly well established and common usage in linguistics. It also has an established but not as common usage in mathematics, and I thought about adding either an article for this, or a disambiguation page, if there were further established usage. According to OED on line, there are only these uses for the noun, but also an old and now obsolete adjectivistic usage ("Approaching closely, resembling"). I also sought the wp pages, and there I found an IT usage of possible interest, but also some other uses of "approximant" or "approximantly", in constructions where I definitely would have expected another word, either "approximative", "approximatively", or "approximation".

Two examples are "Approximant extent in terms of modern locations", in History of the administrative divisions of China, and "To determine the approximant date, you must take into consideration the Hebrew traditions of Yom Kippur or Purification and the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.", in Talk:Chronology of Jesus. A few other examples are provided in User:JoergenB#Approximant.

So, my questions are:

1. Are these ways to employ "approximant(ly)" 'non-standard' in the meaning of this article?
2. If so, is the (mis)usage 'common' enough?

If the answers to both questions(*) are yes, then "approximant" ought to be added to the list. JoergenB (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

(*)OK, I know that this construction is slightly non-standard; "If both questions should be answered in the affirmative", however, sounds a bit too clumsy - and, anyhow, I don't have English as English is not my native language...

Alternate vs Alternative?

The main page states (without reference) that alternative is a noun and alternate is a verb. I'm fairly sure (and OED seems to support me on this) that alternate can be used as verb, adjective or noun. The use of alternate as synonomous with alternative is certainly a little uncommon, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it non-standard. I suggest that we delete this section. Jowa fan (talk) 05:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

UK versus US English. In US 'alernate' can also mean the same as the UK alternative. As in Microsoft 'Please insert an alternate disk into drive a:', means put a different disc in, not swap them in an indefinite sequence. That's why your OED backed you up there. 108.171.128.189 (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Farther vs further

Farther is a distance as in: "Shall we walk farther?" "A baseball pitcher could likely throw a baseball farther than I could." Further indicates growth or taking something to a greater extent: "Students that study go further in their education." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.68.39 (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of "peruse", "dilemma", "adage", and "literally"

I removed "peruse", "dilemma", and "literally" because they were all criticized for definitions which are supported by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, in contravention of the "major English dictionaries do not condone in any definition" criterion. I removed "adage" because there was no explanation for its being listed. nohat (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Suspect vs perpetrator: propose remove

I don't believe that dictionaries support the known/unknown distinction proposed here. Also, I'm far from convinced by the two "non-standard" examples. "Police are looking for three suspects...": for better or worse, this is a construction that is used widely by the media, so it's hard to call it non-standard. "Witnesses said the suspect was tall and thin": I don't think many people would use the word "perpetrator" instead in this context. I propose removing this entire entry. Jowa fan (talk) 04:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Irony/Alanis Morrisette

If we're already including Alanis Morrisette's "rain on your wedding day" example of irony, would it be possible to incorporate Ed Byrne's comedic response? The example is currently "It is raining on our wedding day! Is it not ironic?". Could we add to the end "(Only if you're marrying a weatherman and he picks the date.)"? There's the practical benefit of reinforcing the concept of irony by showing how the bad example could be turned into a good example, and the non-practical benefit of it being funny as heck. (Though I wouldn't know how to cite that or what sort of citation would be necessary) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.132.255 (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe Mr Byrne's words were "If your husband was a weatherman, and he predicted it wouldn't rain", although I'm quoting from memory.Nora nettlerash (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Instead of making it into some sort of 'fan page' maybe you could explain why pouring rain on a wedding day isn't the opposite of what was fitting to the occasion. The error in the word's mix-up doesn't really come across to me in the examples, making me wonder if there is such a problem at all. I often wonder if the problem is due to a very precise literary use of the word trotted out by some people. I would ask who is being ironic and to whom. Can god create an irony by making rain on a wedding day? Or is it a random result of thermal activity and therefore not ever ironic? In any case I'm the customer here, I'm confused by your examples, you've not explained it and the section is already a big enough failure - so lay off making it into another in-joke/in-story page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gomez2002 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: Sarcasm vs Sardonic comment

I don't have a perfect example but I do know this is one area that gets lumped together all the time. Every biting comment is called "sarcasm" and quite a lot of them are not, in fact, sarcastic. They are sardonic. Padillah (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Or facetious. Don't forget facetious. McAfreak (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The meanings of the two words are too similar for it to be relevant to the section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.189 (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Range

It is common, and wrong, to use "range" to mean "two random examples of a large variety". For instance, "The buffet was extensive, with foods ranging from fruit salad to fried fish" or whatever.

But there is no scale on which "fruit salad" is on one end and "fried fish" is on another. And that is correct use of "range" -- when there is some quality of the items discussed such that they can be arranged along a scale with the two examples given at the extreme ends. "Ranging from very small to very large" is correct and so forth.

I put this in but it was reverted, which is OK. Maybe it doesn't belong. Maybe it's not common (I think it obviously is). Or maybe it's so common that this is indeed the standard usage. Or maybe it's too tricky to adequately describe succinctly ("A plethora of fruits, ranging from blueberries to watermelon" is arguably correct, for instance, if the speaker is emphasizing size, which he probably isn't). I think it maybe ought to go in, though. Herostratus (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I reverted it because I checked some dictionaries and couldn't find any support for the idea that it's wrong. "Range" can indeed be used for items varying along a measurable scale, but it can also be used in other ways. Jowa fan (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. Herostratus (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Drug, Drugged, Drag, Dragged

I've seen many people get tangled up in these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.141.208.103 (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Quartary/quaternary

I removed the entry for quartary vs. quaternary, because the term quartary is not normally used in English. See "quartary, adj." in the OED Online, [10] (accessed 2012-01-26). The idea that it should be used as the "correct" successor of tertiary seems to be original research, and the references were not about English usage, but instead came from a Latin dictionary. The OED's entry "quaternary, n. and adj." at [11] includes the definition "Of or belonging to the fourth order or rank; fourth in a series." Ardric47 (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

comprise/compose

I got rid of the bit about comprise due to it not being misuse as described by the introduction, per this discussion in Merriam-Webster:

Although it has been in use since the late 18th century, sense 3 is still attacked as wrong. Why it has been singled out is not clear, but until comparatively recent times it was found chiefly in scientific or technical writing rather than belles lettres. Our current evidence shows a slight shift in usage: sense 3 is somewhat more frequent in recent literary use than the earlier senses. You should be aware, however, that if you use sense 3 you may be subject to criticism for doing so, and you may want to choose a safer synonym such as compose or make up.

novitiate

contrary to what this article now says, MW [12] says novitiate can refer to people. Kdammers (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

expect vs anticipate

eg a baby. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, ok, that's a good one. "We're expecting a baby... but it could be a velociraptor." However I think you'll end up finding that anticipate is one of the senses of expect. Brentstrahan (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Invest

(I moved this from my user talk page re: my removal of 'invest' —Nohat (talk

Yes, that's my POINT! When you buy a song off Itunes, are you hoping that if you hold onto it in five year's time when you sell it, it will magically turn into a better song that you can sell for 150% of the price you paid for it?? No. That money is gone, it's been spent, not invested. Maybe if you bought the Beatles back catalogue, or a signed limited edition LP of a popular band, that could count as as investment. Just purchasing things, even good things that you get great enjoyment from, is not an investment. That's spending. And it's perfectly fine, there's nothing wrong with spending money to get nice things and nice experiences for yourself, that's what it's for. But just because you get lasting satisfaction from something doesn't make it an investment. Just because something holds its (emotional) value, and is something you can use, enjoy, listen to time and time again... it's still not an investment. Clever purchasing is not investing. It's only investment if you expect to get a return in kind. If you buy a donut for $3 you get 10 units of satisfaction, but if you use that $3 to buy a sweet Ben Harper track that you play when making love to your sweet heart and that's the night you conceive your first child who goes on to cure cancer you get 10 trillion units of satisfaction... that's still not an investment, because you don't measure the return on a purchase by the units of satisfaction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brentstrahan (talk • contribs) 01:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems your definition of "return" is much stricter than any dictionary definition. It doesn't seem that this particular peeve of yours is universally regarded as an error, and so does not belong on the page. No dictionary specifies that return on an investment be measured in any particular set of units, or that it be measurable at all. Nohat (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't sure if you'd be watching this talk page - I haven't used wikipedia for a while. It doesn't seem like you've actually looked up the definition of 'invest' at all. I find in·vest/inˈvest/Verb: 1.Expend money with the expectation of achieving a profit or material result by putting it into financial schemes, shares, or property, or...: "getting workers to invest in private pension funds"; "the company is to invest $12 million in its new manufacturing site" 2.Devote (one's time, effort, or energy) to a particular undertaking with the expectation of a worthwhile result.

It's abundantly clear that the definition of invest is not just "buying stuff that you really like, even if you really really like it." This is not just a peeve of mine, I'm also right. The concept of "invest" is a different concept to "spend" or "purchase", in both cases an expenditure of capital, cash, time, effort, whatever, has happened, but the definition of invest, no matter where you look, clearly makes the distinction that a return is expected. And yes, in this case, "return" is meant in the economic sense: return, the financial term for the profit or loss derived from an investment. The definition does not specify that there be a return in any particular unit, but it does specify that there be a return.

You're right that this is an intensely anal thing for me to make a big deal of, but this whole page is an intensely anal page - it makes a point of saying that there's a difference between "to" and "too". The only case you've come up with to show that this isn't a misused phrase was, itself, the very misused phrase that I'm talking about.

Invest stays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brentstrahan (talk • contribs) 01:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The intro to this page gives "The words listed below are consistently used in ways that major English dictionaries do not condone in any definition." No dictionary condones usage of the word "invest" in a sense that doesn't imply expectation of return. People often use it simply after purchasing something expensive, or something that they simply don't need, which is a misuse of the word. Just because there are cases where a (bad) argument could be made that after someone has spent money on something there could be some conceivable return: (eg a home handyman "invests" in an expensive tradesman's hammer and was able to sell a bench 10 years later at a market for more than the cost of the hammer); doesn't mean that there aren't cases where speakers and writers use the term in cases where there is no conceivable chance of a return, for instance in the purchasing of downloaded personal music. That's the end of the argument about whether it belongs on a list of words which are commonly misused - unless you can show that most dictionaries condone using the word "invest" in cases where no return is expected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brentstrahan (talk • contribs) 01:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

And the level of nitpicking on this page is already high. "Presume" and "assume" are on the list merely because they have usages which are slightly different. They don't show a case where it's wrong to use either, in fact one of the definitions of presume, given on the wictionary link provided, is "to assume". And a large number of entries here are merely homophones, and could all be deleted are replaced with "Homophones: be sure to use the right one. Search elsewhere for list of homophones." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brentstrahan (talk • contribs) 02:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

My impression is that when people speak of "investing in" a bicycle or some other item for pleasure (and this usage goes back at least as far as Gilbert and Sullivan), they are being mock-pompous and facetious, as if to say "I'm not really wasting money, you know": it's not really an error. Economists now use "invest" only for something from which one expects a return, and there are even arguments about whether it is appropriate for an asset which may appreciate but produces no income. Historically however the "investment" of a fund or sum of money only meant the form it happens to take for the time being, the object it is (metaphorically) clothed in. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 12:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Language has always taken liberties with metaphorical senses of words. There is no requirement that a return be a literal, monetary one. Saying that someone who says they are investing in downloaded music is making a wrong use of language is a kind of nonsense language peeving. You will find this usage all the time in respectable, edited, published works. Dictionary definitions support many metaphorical uses of the word "invest": Merriam-Webster gives "to make use of for future benefits or advantages" and "to involve or engage especially emotionally"; Random-House gives "the use (money), as in accumulating something"; Collins gives "to devote (effort, resources, etc., to a project)". None give any hint that one particular metaphorical usage is excluded form the meaning of the word. A return of future happiness is sufficient. Take it to the disputed usage page. Nohat (talk) 16:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Error in first line of the article!

There is a glaring grammatical error in the first line of this article. It says "This is a list of English words which are commonly misused". It should say "This is a list of English words that are commonly misused". It is a restrictive clause and therefore the use of "which" is generally regarded as being incorrect. There are countless examples of the same error in the talk pages so I am guessing that some people will disagree with me. A brief check of the most authoritative grammar pages on the internet will explain relevant grammar rules to you. Considering this is an article about misuse of words the fact that it contains an error rather detracts from its reliability. Hawys (talk) 10:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The restrictive clause that/which distinction is not a real rule of English. It is a made-up rule promulgated by grammar nazis and their ilk. See e.g. http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001461.html http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/78/when-is-it-appropriate-to-use-that-as-opposed-to-which http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/xmasthat.html and so on... Nohat (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Misspelled words

Some of these examples, such as "can't" and "cant", "levee" and "levy", "rein" and "reign", are really just commonly misspelled words, not commonly misused words. For example, no one actually confuses "can't" with the real word "cant". Instead, people simply misspell "can't". In fact, most people who can't spell "can't" probably don't even know that the separate word "cant" exists. One might just as well include "dont", "shant", "doesnt", etc. The fact that there is no actual word "dont" is fairly irrelevant (since the existence of an actual word "cant" has no bearing on people misspelling "can't"). 86.181.174.116 (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This comment strikes me as mere cant ("affected whining") -- must we really now debate whether substitution of cant for can't is best classified as a misuse versus a misspelling? Does it matter? BTW the difference between cant and dont is that cant (being an actual word) isn't flagged by spellcheckers. But so what? EEng (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Possible additions

Here are some possible additions to this list:

1. The word "if" - which is often (wrongly) used as if it were a synonym for the word "whether"; The word "will" - which is sometimes used as the future tense after the word "I" (when "shall" is the correct future tense after "I"). ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

But if does mean "whether"—it's sense 2 in Meriam-Webster: "WHETHER <asked if the mail had come> <I doubt if I'll pass the course>"

And will can be used for future tense with first person—as in Merriam-Webster's sense 3: "—used to express futurity <tomorrow morning I will wake up in this first-class hotel suite — Tennessee Williams>"

Both these suggestions seem like made-up grammar rules promulgated by some overzealous and misinformed English teacher. Nohat (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

2. I'm not sure the explanation. But the difference between "bring" and "take" should be added.

The "concession controversy" stated in the webpage is incorrect

From the wordnet dictionary: One of the definition of concession is "a point conceded or yielded". Hence, the statement 'It is non-standard to refer to the items sold at concession stands as "concessions."' on the webpage is invalid, and I request the authorized person to remove the entry for 'concession'.

Can I remove 'revert'?

I'm not familiar with the standards of this list but per the intro, I'm thinking of moving 'revert' to the other list as the usage meaning someting similar to reply is now accepted by some sources. E.g. Collins Advanced Oxford Learners, also [13] [14]. Interesting enough although a number of commentators and three of those RS I found suggest the wording is only common in South Asia, SEA and some other developing semi-anglophone regions like parts of the Carribean, Africa and possibly Fiji, (although some sources in such places also consider the usage incorrect, e.g. [15] others suggest the usage has been common in legal circles, in the UK, Ireland and Australia and possibly the US for ages although I haven't found good sources discussing this aspect. Anyway can I remove 'revert' without being reverted :-P Nil Einne (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Change "Non-standard" to "Misuse"

This is a page about *misused* words -- not "non-standard" usage. By labeling the incorrect usage examples merely as "Non-standard:", readers are misled to think that the misuse is more acceptable than it is. Call a spade a spade. Call a misuse a misuse. If we don't want to make that correction, then the title of the page should be changed to "List of common non-standard English word usages", but that would open the floodgates to a list that would be hopelessly long. -- DBooth (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

As it says at the top of the page, "This is a project page meant to give examples of common usage errors in Wikipedia articles. It is not meant to be an encyclopedic article about such errors."

Add "anniversary"

"Anniversary" surely can only mean an annual event. "First Anniversary" is a proper term; "One-year anniversary", while unambiguous, is redundant. But "six-week anniversary" is all too common and is a self-contradiction, and absurd. =====Nuance 4 03:50, 27 Nov 2014 (UTC)

Copyright

Scribendi's definition of copyright is incorrect: "A copyright consists of select privileges that legally protect a work and prohibit its duplication without a reference." Actually "a copyright consists of select privileges that legally protect a work and prohibit its duplication." Plagiarism would be the use of excerpts from that work without a reference. Setting aside the question of fair use/fair dealing... if you duplicate an entire work, even with attribution, you are still violating copyright. I am not a lawyer so I did not make this change directly. DeweyQ (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Woman versus Women - Seriously?

I've never seen them mixed up, but surely we should therefore list numerous other words, starting with man and men most notably. Men is pretty much a way of pluralising various words, at least as common as -um and -a for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.189 (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Assume versus Presume

That one makes no sense, the 'conflicting' definitions given are pretty much the same and use the same words in similar ways. 'Doctor Livingstone, I assume?' would have been OK wouldn't it? 'Absence of proof to the contrary', well if that isn't the case then the person is believing a fallacy, so that statement must apply in both cases (as neither word implies knowingly wrong). In both cases we have no proof that the notion is true, otherwise it could be neither an assumption nor presumption, it would be factual knowledge. So in both words I've shown that there is absence of proof to the contrary and no proof of truthfulness. QED - hey I'm going to delete it108.171.128.189 (talk) 16:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Not here . . .

precede, proceed -- something about how Americans slang it to "pruh-seed", then use it wrong. i can't cite source, so me no add into article. me english poor, too.

pretain, protain, pertain -- something i hear peoples says. me english poor still.

Okay, seriously, sorry for the poorly written silliness. Still, yes, I hear these, but I don't have a source. Since this website needs sources, don't add these to the article without a properly legit citation. 70.173.63.62 (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Past and Passed - proposed amendment

Past can also be an adverb: Standard: "He went past my house..." or "He passed my house...". I suggest editing the article to take this into account. GilesW (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

shall and will

I think it's ridiculous to describe the completely ordinary sentence "I will be going to the gym" as "non-standard". This sounds to me like one of those made-up rules about when to use word A vs. word B which have a nice ring to them, but aren't representative at all of how the language actually works. Nohat (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

shall, will, should and would. These two modal verbs are often used interchangeably, however, shall is the first person verb and will is the second and third person verb. The use of the alternate word (i.e. will in first the person or shall in the second or third person), is only used to express determination. Similarly for the past tense forms should and would. Standard: I shall be going to the shops after lunch. Standard: He will be visiting his mother. Non-standard: I will be going to the gym. Standard: You shall be doing your homework. (in this case the use of shall expresses determination) Standard: The second example should always be used in this instance. (In this usage determination is always expressed and would would be incorrect) An exception exists when used to denote capacity or agreement. In these cases will (or would) is used exclusively. Standard: This barrel will hold ten litres. Standard: I will join the club if you will, and we will go together.

I have removed this item to here, since it doesn't really meet the standard expressed at the top of the page: "The words listed below are frequently used in ways that major English dictionaries do not condone in any definition." There is even already a note to editors in the wikitext: "note to editors: please check in at least the Merriam-Webster Dictionary [16] and the American Heritage Dictionary [17] to make sure that any additions are in fact misuses and not merely disputed uses". I checked Merriam-Webster and it gives many senses for "will", including desire, choice, willingness, consent, customary action, futurity, capability, sufficiency, and probability—without any restriction as to subject. They even give an example from Tennessee Williams for "I will": <tomorrow morning I will wake up in this first-class hotel suite — Tennessee Williams> —Nohat (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. We have to follow the delicate and always-shifting line between "misuse" and "language in the process of changing". Shall and will are on the "changing language" side of that line. "Shall" is becoming archaic and replaced with "will" in all instances. "I think I will fail the test" is normal English that does not imply determination to fail the test, for chrissakes. "After work I will go to the gym" is normal English. An editor has reversed your removal, her right per WP:BRD but now she or someone has to come here and make the point for keeping the material. Herostratus (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Interesting that the two dictionaries that are listed to be checked are American dictionaries. Two proper English dictionaries should be listed as well. The Oxford dictionary (widely regarded as the authority on British English) and Collins dictionary should be included.

Digging out my Oxford book on English usage, dated 2012 and it says,

"The traditional rule in standard British English is that shall is used with first person pronouns (i.e. I and we) to form the future tense, while will is used with second and third person forms (i.e. you, he, she, it, they). For example:

I shall be late.

They will not have enough food.

However, when it comes to expressing a strong determination to do something, the roles are reversed: will is used with the first person, and shall with the second and third. For example:

I will not tolerate such behaviour.

You shall go to the ball!."

No mention that modern usage is using the two words interchangeably or that such use is acceptable. So according to the authoritative references, it is how the language works. That you (and indeed I) were ignorant of the proper grammatical rules does not really change that. 185.69.144.204 (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, I made what I believed to be a good faith contribution. I am not going to get excited whether the entry remains or is removed, or any of the wording is toned down. However, I do believe that if the correct usage of these words is becoming blurred, it is down to the lazy teachers that now infest British schools where they are resistant to teaching anything that requires real effort such as spelling and grammar. Many school leavers today are incapable of writing anything vaguely comprehensible. I should point out, at this juncture, that I am not in a position to comment on teachers in American schools. --Elektrik Fanne 15:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

"lazy teachers that now infest British schools" and the rest of your rant. This is a ridiculous statement and essentially proof that you are wrongheaded on the whole subject. Language changes. Hitting students with rulers doesn't stop that. Perhaps we should rewrite the entire encyclopedia in Middle English, to please you.

I have no idea how people in Britain speak, but in American people no longer say "shall", as a rule. Perhaps the whole shall-will section should be labled as applying to British English only? Herostratus (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

We still use 'shall' here in Britain. I have to support Fanne in his lazy teacher statement. When I was at school, a good few years ago, we were still taught the vestiges of grammar, if no proper emphasis was made to spelling (it got corrected in one's work, but was not otherwise taught). However, school leavers today, when they come for employment, certainly cannot spell or even use the right word in many cases (and punctuation and capital letters seem to be optional), making much written work unintelligible. A major problem is the almost universal use of 'of' in place of 'have', not mention that in spoken English almost every other word in a sentence has to be 'like'.

As for the US: I am not surprised that 'shall' is no longer used. America made the teaching easier by adandoning all the traditional rules of grammar and spelling and simplified everything (thus simplifying the teaching and making it easier), in some cases (such as proper apostrophe use) by statute. Teachers now use the excuse that language is changing in order to justify not teaching it. Now there is a self fulfilling prophecy if ever there was one. 185.69.144.213 (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Shall and will

(N.B. I wrote this before I saw the previous thread above! I tend to agree with the writer above. And here I was only concerned about one doubling-down word!) Herostratus (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

An editor added "only" to a sentence for "shall, will, should and would", and is insisting. The addition is show highlighted below (the highlight is to show the change, its not highlit in the article text):

The use of the alternate word (i.e. will in first the person or shall in the second or third person), is only used to express determination.

But this isn't true. It might have been true a century ago. Language has moved on and "shall" and "will" are interchanged much more loosely, and in particular will for the first person has replaced use of shall so a considerable degree: "I think I will fail the test" is common and no longer means "I am determined to fail the test".

Shall is generally used less across the board and is becoming archaic really, but constructions such as "They shall probably meet us at the game" are not risible and do not denote some imputed special effort of will be involved.

The difference between a misuse and just language in the process of changing is a difficult line to see, but I think that use of will and shall has evolved so that it's simply false to add the word "only" to that definition. Herostratus (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Then we will require an authoratative reference that the language has moved on and that 'only' can be replaced by a less restrictive word or phrase, given that a reference supporting 'only' has been supplied (and now we have two including the one I found above). 185.69.144.204 (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Wait, this isn't even an article. Why does this page even exist? Is it supposed to be a guide for editors or something? At any rate, could we perhaps move it to Wikipedia:Pedant's guide to mid-20th-century British English? Herostratus (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

It used to be an article until it was determined that since pedants with axes to grind and who know nothing about modern linguistics would be continuously filling it with their personal pet peeves (as we have here), it was moved out of the article namespace. I would say outright deleting this page is a perfectly reasonable way forward. In any case, a neutral description of the dispute about "shall" and "will" could be added to List of English words with disputed usage. Nohat (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Further, we already have an entire article devoted to the topic: Shall and will, which has an extensive section discussion the prescriptive rule about the shall/will distinction by person. Covering it here on this page in such a one-sided, narrow-minded way seems redundant and misleading. Nohat (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

titular

I have removed the entry for titular and placed it here, since it doesn't really meet the standard expressed at the top of the page: "The words listed below are frequently used in ways that major English dictionaries do not condone in any definition."

titular means 'had by virtue of possessing a title', where title refers to a rank in the peerage, clergy, military, etc. It does not mean 'concerning a title', as might apply to a book, film, etc. Non-standard: In The Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins is the titular character. Standard: Among Lord Somerton's titular possessions was a stone cottage on the hillside.

The first dictionary I looked in gives for sense 3 of titular: "of, relating to, or constituting a title <the titular hero of the play>" Nohat (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

salutation

I have removed the entry for salutation and placed it here, since it doesn't really meet the standard expressed at the top of the page: "The words listed below are frequently used in ways that major English dictionaries do not condone in any definition."

salutation means a greeting, such as "hello" or "good evening" and does not mean a title, such as "Mister" or "Doctor" or a title's abbreviation, such as "Mr" or "Dr".

The first dictionary I looked in gives for sense 2 of salutation: "the word or phrase of greeting (as Gentlemen or Dear Sir or Madam) that conventionally comes immediately before the body of a letter" Nohat (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

alternately and alternatively

I have removed the entry for alternately and alternatively and placed it here, since it doesn't really meet the standard expressed at the top of the page: "The words listed below are frequently used in ways that major English dictionaries do not condone in any definition."

alternately and alternatively. Alternately is an adverb that means in turn; one after the other. Alternatively is an adverb that means on the other hand; one or the other. The corresponding distinction applies to the adjectives "alternate" and "alternative". The concept of "alternative reality" is often mislabelled "alternate reality". Standard: We alternately spun the wheel in the game. Standard: You can choose a large bookcase or, alternatively, you can buy two small ones.

The first dictionary I looked in gives for sense 4 of alternate: "constituting an alternative <took the alternate route home>"Nohat (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

If you are right, these three entries should be moved to the article about disputed English usage. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 10:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

DRV suggestion

The closer at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 July 1#Easily confused words said that "Easily confused words" can't be redirected to a project namespace and suggested that the AfD discussion be reviewed at DRV. I talked to the original closer about this, but he provided "no opinions" about this. I could take the AfD discussion to DRV, but I felt it's too premature without asking here first. I've not contributed to the page before, so I'd like opinions please. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Decimate

I am removing the entry for the word decimate: "decimate and devastate. To decimate is, actually, to reduce by ten percent (Latin decem=tenth); Common usage of decimate is to damage or remove a large portion of something; to devastate is to destroy or ruin most of something." In fact, decimate has never had this meaning in either Latin or English. The Roman practice was specifically about randomly selecting ten per cent of a military unit and making the remaining soliders of the unit kill them, as punishment for the unit. In English, the word originally referred to a tithe. The modern usage of the word, to mean devastate, is attested from 1663, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. Except in the case of the Roman practice, the word has been used exclusively to mean devastate. The "reduce by 10%" usage is the incorrect one, and is not actually common, so the entry does not belong on the page. --Joshua Issac (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

As you say, there is common usage meaning of damage or remove a large portion of something. The strict meaning, as you clearly know, is quite different, so we can say the common usage is really misuse. Hence its inclusion in this list. Batternut (talk) 09:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Batternut, the strict meaning is the same as the standard, common meaning. The non-standard usage of "reduce by 10%" is not common (and there is little evidence to suggest that it has ever been common), which is why I removed it. --Joshua Issac (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The entry in the list prior to Joshua Issac's removal, "decimate is, actually, to reduce by ten percent", was problematic. It reiterated the "true meaning" argument considered bogus by many, eg OxfordWords blog calling it an "Etymological Fallacy", Merriam Webster and many others making similar arguments.

If our view is that "to reduce by ten percent" is now a misuse in the opinion of most usage writers and editors, then the word should be listed here but with that meaning deprecated. Some articles employ such usage, eg "Heusden was decimated. One tenth of the town's population died...", 10 "To reduce something by one tenth is to decimate". Batternut (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Looking at decimate on Merriam-Webster and decimate in the Oxford English Dictionary, there is no definition for "reduce something by ten per cent" in general, so the dictionaries do not consider it valid use. A definition exists for the military sense ("decimate a regiment"), so it must still be in use for the military practice. But is the "reduce something by 10%" meaning is actually common enough to warrant inclusion? Personally, I have never seen the word being used in this way (except during someone pointing out the "true meaning").

10 should be updated to reflect the usage of the word. The military practice is mentioned already. For Heusden, there is no source in the article, but Black Watch: Liberating Europe and catching Himmler - my extraordinary WW2 with the Highland Division by Tom Renouf uses the word decimate: "Heusden's small population was decimated by this single atrocity". But the book does not say what the original population of the town was, so whether the word meets the dictionary definition is harder to determine. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

"MOS:ARABIC" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect MOS:ARABIC. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 16#MOS:ARABIC until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. —AFreshStart (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)