Work

Ten Misheard Expressions To Avoid In Your Writing

Flag
11:30AM September 8, 2010 | Angus Kidman


Anyone can make a typo or a spelling mistake, and fixing those is pretty easy in the spellcheck era. If you want your writing totally error-free, you also need to avoid using expressions which you think you’re using correctly but which you’ve actually misheard. Here are ten examples to watch out for.

Having studied linguistics as my main subject at university many years ago, I do recognise that language usage changes over time, and that time period can be quite short. Prescriptive rules eventually give way if the majority of speakers of a language adopt a different approach (the switch from using “he” to “they” to refer to an unspecified individual is one obvious recent example).

However, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t rules that continue to apply in particular contexts, or expressions that are, for all standard purposes, flat-out incorrect. For some reason there are few things that irk me more than writers using a phrase such as “different tact” and being blissfully unaware that they’ve got it quite wrong.

This is a list of some of the most common errors in that field. They’re mistakes which you won’t necessarily notice during conversations, but which should stick out like a sore thumb (not a saw thumb) in written work. Many spell-checking systems won’t pick these errors up, though Word did flag about half of them while I was writing this piece. (Confession: I’ve gathered quite a few of these examples from my Lifehacker US colleagues.)

Some of these mistakes attract their own false etymologies. People construct a pseudo-logical explanation for the version they’re using, and over time these can become quite widely believed. Leaving aside the fact that language is not always based in obvious logic anyway (see “beyond the pale” below), the existence of an apparently plausible explanation doesn’t make those expressions correct. It just makes it a little less likely that you’ll realise you’re wrong.

“Different tack”, not “different tact”

The tack in this case is the direction in which a ship is travelling. It’s not an abbreviation for “tactic”.

“Moot point”, not “mute point”

If something is “moot”, then it’s open to debate. The two words “moot” and “mute” are pronounced quite differently in Australian English (the first rhymes with “coot”, the second with “cute”), but their similarity in some US accents seems to have created confusion.

“Taking up the reins”, not “taking up the reigns”

The expression is about riding a horse, not about forcing your mother to abdicate so you can rule the kingdom.

“Eke out”, not “eek out”

The Macquarie dictionary handily defines “eke out” as “to supply what is lacking”. If you write “eek out” instead, you’re lacking accuracy.

“Beyond the pale”, not “beyond the pail”

The meaning is clear — something that’s generally unacceptable — but the origin isn’t. This has nothing to do with the colour of your skin or where a bucket might be located on your property. Here’s the origin per the Macquarie Dictionary:

In English history, a fence around a territory and by extension the limit to which a jurisdiction extended; hence the Irish Pale, the part of Ireland ruled by the English in the 14th century and in which English law held sway. Anyone living beyond this boundary was thought to be beyond the bounds of civilisation.

“Mine of information”, not “mind of information”

A mine is filled with undiscovered riches. Your mind is a terrible thing to waste.

“Just deserts”, not “just desserts”

This is understandably liable to cause confusion, since it uses a less common sense of “desert” (a deserved reward) which is pronounced the same way as “dessert” (as in ice cream). Snopes has a good explanation of the differences.

“Wait with bated breath”, not “wait with baited breath”

No, your breath doesn’t stink like fish while you’re waiting. Bated in this case is the shortened form of abate, meaning to lessen or withdraw.

“Due respect”, not “do respect”

Anyone who thinks “with all do respect” makes any kind of sense is not thinking about what they write. Like “moot point”, this is a bigger issue with US English due to a lack of differentiation in the pronunciation of “due” and “do”.

“For all intents and purposes”, not “for all intensive purposes”

Intensive means “occurring in an extreme degree”, so there would be quite a difference between “intensive purposes” and “all intents and purposes” — the incorrect version is much less all-encompassing than it wants to be.

What other common misheard phrases should we be avoiding? Tell us in the comments. Thanks Caitlin for the Twitter discussion that kicked off this idea.

Lifehacker 101 is a weekly feature covering fundamental techniques that Lifehacker constantly refers to, explaining them step-by-step. Hey, we were all newbies once, right?

Comments

1 2 3

  • Steven Noble

    September 8, 2010 at 11:47 AM

    My favourite is “try and do” for “try to do”. And of course there’s “full swoop” for “fell swoop”.

    • Pete W

      September 11, 2010 at 8:00 AM

      All of the above irritate me no end.

      But one that stands out, having heard it again last night on TV, is that awful Americanisation “off of”

      As in: “I got the information off of the Internet”

      And of course – the creeping use of “gotten” instead of plain old “got”, as in “She has gotten old”

      ARRGGHHHHH!!! :)

    • Pete W

      September 11, 2010 at 8:04 AM

      Oh yes – and don’t forget “foul swoop” in relation to Steven’s “full swoop”….!

  • surfer79

    September 8, 2010 at 11:49 AM

    this post is making my head hurt

  • Elly Hart

    September 8, 2010 at 11:57 AM

    “I could care less” annoys me so much, same with “I didn’t do nothing!”

    Not an expression as such, but I’ve noticed it a lot lately: People these days try AND do something. It used to be that you try TO do something.

    I always thought “try and” was incorrect, but more and more people seem to be readily accepting it in less formal contexts, like in conversations.

    • pdf

      September 9, 2010 at 8:39 PM

      Surely “I could care less,” is a contracted version of “You assume I could care less,” or similar?

      • Angus Kidman

        September 9, 2010 at 9:14 PM

        I’ve always thought it’s a lazy misunderstanding of “I couldn’t care less”, a phrase which is logically consistent. Abbreviating “I assume you could care less” doesn’t make it make any more sense.

  • stewie

    September 8, 2010 at 11:59 AM

    Don’t forget ‘irregardless’, ‘a whole nother’ and ‘all of THE sudden’.

  • Andy

    September 8, 2010 at 12:20 PM

    My pet hate is anyone saying they are on tender hooks instead of tenterhooks (to be uncertain and anxious about what is going to happen)

  • SteveM

    September 8, 2010 at 12:23 PM

    My girlfriend always says “seeming as” instead of “seeing as”… which irritates me.

    • bazuden

      September 8, 2010 at 1:06 PM

      Lots of clowns at work think its “seen as”. It grinds my gears.

      Also many people seem to believe that the abvreviation “should’ve” is written “should of”. Lots of culprits on Facebook.

      • Phil

        September 12, 2010 at 1:20 PM

        That should be “think it’s” not “think its”.

      • bazuden

        September 17, 2010 at 2:16 PM

        Sorry Phil, I should of checked my punctuation ;-)

  • Adam

    September 8, 2010 at 12:35 PM

    I’m always amused by “Let’s nip it in the butt”

  • Goose

    September 8, 2010 at 12:53 PM

    “For all intensive purposes” makes me want to vomit in my mouth a little.

    • Bjorn

      September 9, 2010 at 6:01 PM

      I did vomit!!!

    • pdf

      September 9, 2010 at 8:42 PM

      I actually had an argument with someone about it just last week, and they simply would not believe they were incorrect – it left me speechless.

    • deano7000

      January 20, 2011 at 12:52 PM

      Mind you, I rather like “for all intents and porpoises”.

      • Bottlefrog

        July 20, 2011 at 10:34 PM

        surely you are addressing seaside campers “for all in tents and porpoises”

  • Anti

    September 8, 2010 at 1:02 PM

    The most annoying of these for me, by far, is people who use “would of” or “might of” instead of “would have” or “might have”. I only see it in late teens/early 20s, people around my age, but I’m genuinely worried that it’s going to become the standard, or even acceptable to use.

  • Travis

    September 8, 2010 at 1:02 PM

    I get annoyed with

    “oft times”

    as in “oft times I say silly things” as opposed to “I often say silly things”

  • Kirsty

    September 8, 2010 at 1:06 PM

    My boyfriend always says ‘splitting image’ for two people who look alike. I can see how that one can be confusing as it actually makes more sense that ‘spitting image’.

    • Jeff

      September 14, 2010 at 3:21 AM

      Even “spitting image” is a misunderstanding. It is an older Southern colloquialism “spirit and image.” For example, “That boy is the spirit and image of his daddy.”

      • Randy

        September 14, 2010 at 7:06 AM

        Interesting. I always wondered if “spitting image” meant they were alike right down to their spit.

      • Angus Kidman

        September 14, 2010 at 9:03 AM

        The etymology of “spitting image” is complex and hard to pin down, but the notion that it is derived from “spirit and image” has certainly been disputed. (Will check further when I’m back home with some proper dictionaries!)

  • joseph

    September 8, 2010 at 1:28 PM

    “what happens if” does not equal womsif
    likewise “may as well” does not shorten to mosewell
    then there is augers well and all goes well ;)

  • Fiona

    September 8, 2010 at 1:37 PM

    My favorite recently was a friend who didn’t want to place someone else on a ‘pedal stool’. That one came in an email too, the written word.

    Is a ‘pedal stool’ some kind of unicycle?

  • Chris Schulz

    September 8, 2010 at 1:38 PM

    your so wrong. ;-)

  • Matt

    September 8, 2010 at 1:52 PM

    My wife hasn’t got a specific expression, but has lots of words – the worst of which is “sempt” instead of “seemed”

    “a whole nother” is one that I cannot stand.

  • Dean

    September 8, 2010 at 2:17 PM

    Haven’t noticed anyone mention one that I find particularly painful; using then in place of than. I swear I have some friends who haven’t used ‘than’ in any emails I’ve ever received from them.

    • jimbo

      May 27, 2011 at 12:07 PM

      So many people mess this one up. They say things like ‘Better then that’, or ‘This thing is bigger then that one’.

      RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! LISTEN TO YOURSELVES!

      • Ron

        May 27, 2011 at 3:41 PM

        Sounds fine to me. First we will Better, then we will than.

        Apropos.

  • Tim

    September 8, 2010 at 2:35 PM

    Personal hate: ‘Sorry for the inconvenience’

    You’re not sorry FOR it, you’re sorry ABOUT it.

  • Kato

    September 8, 2010 at 2:37 PM

    My personal favourite – if you nearly vomit you “dry wretch” NOT “dry reach” (“to wretch” means to vomit).

    I also thought “a moot point” meant “one which is no longer relevant”.

    • Angus Kidman

      September 8, 2010 at 3:36 PM

      Actually, it’s “dry retch”. Retch = vomit; wretch = unfortunate soul. A wretch might retch, but not vice-versa.

      Moot is indeed often used in the sense you describe, and will probably reach the point where that becomes the primary meaning. But it still won’t make “mute point” correct :)

      • Danny

        September 8, 2010 at 3:54 PM

        ooops too slow Angus got in before me :)

      • AJ

        September 9, 2010 at 3:34 PM

        A moot point is a point to be discussed at a moot (a meeting), and so the meaning of ‘not worth discussing now’ comes naturally from that.

    • Danny

      September 8, 2010 at 3:53 PM

      wretch: a sad sorry individual stricken by poverty or circumstances.
      retch: a spasm of the stomach and throat.

      dry wretch? – still a wretch
      dry retch – voluntary or involuntary vomiting on an empty stomach.

    • Rowena

      September 8, 2010 at 7:53 PM

      I thought it was dry retch. A wretch is someone who is miserable.

  • Keith

    September 8, 2010 at 2:39 PM

    I hate it when people use bought and brought interchangeably. Or when people say supposably instead of supposedly.

    • KayDat

      September 8, 2010 at 11:49 PM

      That is indeed a common one, but I was taught this in Primary School: bought as in buy, brought as in bring. It’s all in the R.

  • Tim

    September 8, 2010 at 2:44 PM

    The one that shocks me is just how often I hear “pacific” used instead of “specific”.

    I consider myself a bit of a word/grammar nazi, but I actually didn’t know about “just deserts”.

    • Stevie-Steve-O

      September 19, 2010 at 11:38 AM

      I also hear the incorrect use of specific all the time. Working in a bookshop, it was a weekly occurrance that a customer would ask for a “pacific” book.
      CUSTOMER: “Can you help me find a pacific book?”
      ME: “Sure, we have books on the Pacific over here; also there are many books titled ‘The Pacific’, was it a specific author you were looking for?”
      CUSTOMER:
      Maybe we should go and look that up in a The-A-Saurus? Maybe there’s even an Autobiology we can find…..
      (Just a few of the many gems I have heard in my years.)

  • AngelaB

    September 8, 2010 at 2:50 PM

    Honestly, if you want your fill of cringe-worthy phrases and grammatical errors, just spend some time on Facebook. I have seen everything, including the ongoing “their, there and they’re” problem.

    I blame inadequate English curriculum and poor pronunciation. At least if the pronunciation was fixed, sounding out these phrases and words would fix a few of the issues.

    • Bottlefrog

      July 20, 2011 at 10:45 PM

      Don’t forget that “pronounciation” is the new way to say things and stuff like.

  • Tom

    September 8, 2010 at 3:03 PM

    My missus gets really furious when people use ‘less’ instead of ‘fewer’. She seems to spot it a lot in the news and on TV adverts. This is why we don’t watch television anymore.

    • Mark

      September 8, 2010 at 10:07 PM

      That’s one which I think is acceptable to get wrong. In either case the meaning is unchanged, whether the noun is countable or not is made known by the noun as well as the adjective. To me it seems nothing is gained by having different adjectives.

  • Phil H

    September 8, 2010 at 3:55 PM

    lackadaisical, not lacksadaisical
    or perhaps not use this word ever again…

    • Steve A

      September 8, 2010 at 4:48 PM

      And even worse – how many footballers have you heard bewailing their team’s “laxydaisy” performance in the second half?

      One more example I’ve heard in “incidences” instead of “instances” or “incidents”. I hate that!

      • Chris

        September 8, 2010 at 9:11 PM

        Incidence, and its plural incidences are both words.
        If used in the context of an accident (incident) then there’s a problem, but it has almost the same meaning as instance(s).

  • olearymo

    September 8, 2010 at 4:44 PM

    a good one I heard: the housing market will plato. They meant plateau, obviously. Written exactly like the philosopher.

  • olearymo

    September 8, 2010 at 4:45 PM

    Also, man, the oatmeal really should do a poster of these.
1 2 3

Post Your Comments