Why does everyone spell lose like 'loose'

[An Enemy Spy]

It's not shorter, it's not easier, and it's incredibly grating on my nerves. I'm so sick of reading things like "you are going to loose tomorrow". It's LOSE people, LOSE!!! Loose is for when you forget to wear a belt. Loose is when you are feeling relaxed! Get it right for Pete's sake!

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

It's not shorter, it's not easier, and it's incredibly grating on my nerves. I'm so sick of reading things like "you are going to loose tomorrow". It's LOSE people, LOSE!!! Loose is for when you forget to wear a belt. Loose is when you are feeling relaxed! Get it right for Pete's sake!

Yeah, you think people would know better. I mean, common!
Common and Come On are different. That's the one that gets me when people do it.

[Tirian]

They're a bunch of loosers.

[Eruantion]

Sort of like the "there, they're, their" thing. People are just too ignorant too pay attention to what they're writing

[Fifty-Eyed Fred]

I don't know anyone with more brain power than a dead snail who does.

[Elfin]

Glad to see I'm not alone in my pedantry.

[CynicalAvocado]

they spell lose as loose because the lose organ in their brain is loose. they should lose the loose lose organ.

[Icewalker]

Yeah, I don't know why this one is so common. I didn't start seeing it until recently, and I never remember running into it when I was younger. It's really weird, and really annoying.

[Cobra_Ikari]

It makes for some interesting statements, though. Loose, as a verb, means "release". Get some laughs out of it. =)

[Eldan]

Just one that happens to me a lot. Usually, I have to think about which one is correct in a sentence (I theoretically know the meaning, but sometimes I confuse them).

[Don Julio Anejo]

I'm guessing because they loosed track of what they were doing while typing when they saw something shiny.

[RebelRogue]

It annoys me too, but not as much as deity spelled as 'diety', which happens a lot around here.

[Rawhide]

Actually, it's really quite simple. Double "o" ("oo") usually produces the same sound as they want to make when they say lose, so it's fairly natural to make that mistake. In fact, even in loose, it makes the same sound, the difference is in the pronunciation of the "s". You have to learn the special spellings and differences of these words specifically.

[CynicalAvocado]

you could always spell it luze

[Rawhide]

Both are also correct spellings for a word, so it won't be highlighted in a standard spellchecker, and once you've written a sentence, your brain will often autocorrect any misspellings, which is why you always get someone else to proof your important work.

Seriously, don't let it grate on your nerves. It's a very easy mistake to make.

[Icewalker]

Well, thing is, it's an easy mistake to make, and that's perfectly fine. But many people don't just make the mistake, they know it wrong, and will use the word, only spelled incorrectly, half a dozen times in a couple paragraphs.

[Mercenary Pen]

Yeah, I'm pedant enough that these things irritate me, including the as yet unmentioned to, too and two...

But, on the other hand, I have learned never to underestimate people's ability to spell things incorrectly, what with having seen dairy and diary used for the wrong things in work communications, and having heard from a friend who used to work at Starbucks of a staff sign there that had coffee incorrectly spelled...

[KerfuffleMach2]

Actually, it's really quite simple. Double "o" ("oo") usually produces the same sound as they want to make when they say lose, so it's fairly natural to make that mistake. In fact, even in loose, it makes the same sound, the difference is in the pronunciation of the "s". You have to learn the special spellings and differences of these words specifically.

Hooray for the English language! And all of its complexity!

[RationalGoblin]

Just one that happens to me a lot. Usually, I have to think about which one is correct in a sentence (I theoretically know the meaning, but sometimes I confuse them).

You've got an excuse though, your native language isn't English, if I remember right. It's Swiss German, correct?

Back to the topic, I don't remember what the words I hate seeing misspelled are, merely because they don't show up often enough.

[Haruki-kun]

Personally, I know the difference between "lose" and "loose",and still find myself making the mistake every once in a while. It's easy to make. Sometimes even by typo.

Where I DO have trouble is with lay and lie. Now those are tough.

.....and also, if you're standing next to the ocean, are you on shore, in shore, at shore, or standing next to the ocean? :smalltongue:

[Knaight]

The cause can usually be summed up in a lack of knowledge. That said, other errors seem far more common. Athiest and Diety appear often on this board, though Athiest appears quite frequently in many places. Then there is rediculous.

However, the loose lose distinction is particularly insidious. Spell check is rendered completely worthless, given its position as a relied upon crutch for many--I don't exempt myself in the slightest in this regard--that allows loose and lose to be mixed up without detection. Rogue and rouge are similar in that respect, as are the variations of to and their.

[Jimorian]

I particularly like when somebody is trying to sling an insult by calling somebody a "looser!"

Another error that seems to be trending up is out words in a sentence. A friend of mine really has to proof his e-mails well because he does this a lot, and I even know of a best-selling author who makes this mistake fairly frequently on a writers forum I frequent.

[Dr.Epic]

Who spells is like that? I don't like I've ever come across "lose" spelled like "loose".

[Dvil]

I remember reading a thread a while ago on whether Miko really would be more relaxed if she were getting "treasure type O" regularly. One poster mentioned that she'd almost certainly be looser, and then another replied, taking offence at this and saying how she wouldn't be a loser at all, and that she'd still be a strong respectable character. Hilarity ensued.

[Lady Moreta]

I'm with Eldan... I know the difference between the two words, but I still have to think about what I'm writing before I get the spelling correct. I usually end up writing the sentence then going back and reading over it to make sure I haven't screwed it up.

Not sure why these two always give me trouble... I'm not bad at spelling, but for some reason I cannot get those ones straight in my head.

[Elfin]

Ooh, an email just reminded me of a particularly egregious offender: its and it's. I can't stand it when those two are mixed up; contractions in general seem to cause lot's of trouble, though.
Yes, I did that on purpose.

[LordShotGun]

Dang man don't loose your temper! Just kidding! I know its lose your temper!

[SaintRidley]

Dang man don't loose your temper!

(upon the rest of us)


:smalltongue:


I sometimes feel like it's done to purposefully annoy me. Which is an incredibly arrogant and self-centered way of looking at things, but there you have it.


Dr. Epic, be glad you haven't run across it. I envy you.

[Dvil]

What about 'an' and 'and'? I sometimes do that by accident, as my fingers go faster than by brain, and it annoys me.

[An Enemy Spy]

Who spells is like that? I don't like I've ever come across "lose" spelled like "loose".

You lucky, lucky bastard.

[pffh]

Losen up man it's not like it's the end of the world if you loose this war.

But yeah I often need to think about which to use since they sound EXACTLY the same to me and I bet most people that make this error don't have english as a first language. I know I don't and you're welcome to complain about any errors in my English when you can speak my language flawlessly :smalltongue:

[An Enemy Spy]

About the only word I have any trouble with is necessary. I can never remember if the 'ss' or the 'c' comes first.

[Mordokai]

Not all of us have english as first language. I admit, I am often guilty of this, but as Rawhide said, double o ("oo" in loose) just sounds right to me. Therefore, I often put it down as such.

[An Enemy Spy]

Not all of us have english as first language. I admit, I am often guilty of this, but as Rawhide said, double o ("oo" in loose) just sounds right to me. Therefore, I often put it down as such.

Well it's different when you aren't from an english speaking country. I'm talking about people who have spoken English their entire lives and still can't get basic words right. What really set me off was seeing the word loose used incorrectly multiple times in an official published work.

[The Dark Fiddler]

Actually, it's really quite simple. Double "o" ("oo") usually produces the same sound as they want to make when they say lose, so it's fairly natural to make that mistake. In fact, even in loose, it makes the same sound, the difference is in the pronunciation of the "s". You have to learn the special spellings and differences of these words specifically.

In other words: English is weird with pronunciations. Kinda glad it's my native language, otherwise I'd be totally loost. :smalltongue:

But yeah, alot (http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/04/alot-is-better-than-you-at-everything.html) of people get it wrong, and it really annoys me.

[Zanaril]

They don't. I don't.

Sometimes I feel like starting a thread titled "Why does everyone make threads complaining about how everyone does something when actually it's only a few people?"

It's probably because it's phonetically ambiguous. You'd expect the word with the double o to have a longer oo sound, but no.

[mucat]

But yeah I often need to think about which to use since they sound EXACTLY the same to me and I bet most people that make this error don't have english as a first language. I know I don't and you're welcome to complain about any errors in my English when you can speak my language flawlessly :smalltongue:

Of course, anyone whose native language isn't English gets a pass on this one; it's a kind of strange spelling convention (though not a unique one; as far as I can think, the letters "oose" in English always rhyme with loose, not with lose.)

Even when the writer is a native English speaker, it doesn't bug me if they misspell it once -- that's a typo. But often someone will do it consistently, and clearly think that's how the word is spelled. This used to bug me alot (http://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/04/alot-is-better-than-you-at-everything.html)...until I realized (like the inventor of the aforementioned alot) that the sentences are often better that way:



"I kept telling her not to loose her keys."
(...but she set them loose anyway, and they scuttled behind the refrigerator before anyone could catch them.)

"You looser!"
(Me looser. You less loose. Dancing contest is mine, bwahahaha!)

"I swear I'm gonna loose my mind!"
(...upon the world. Now an evil disembodied brain is floating through the air, shooting rays of pure energy and defying the combined military might of eleven nations. New York, Toyko, and London are in flames. Make your peace with your gods.)


Now I'm happy to see a whole paragraph full of this misspelling, because I figure by the law of averages, at least one of the sentences will be rendered unintentionally awesome. :smallsmile:

[Mercenary Pen]

The thing with lose and loose is that the number of o's in the word don't actually change the pronunciation of the o's themselves, but rather dictate how the s is pronounced- just another result of the english language having long since outgrown its alphabet...

[Eldan]

Okay, I need this explained. There is a difference in pronunciation between "Loose" and "lose"?:smallconfused:

[Asta Kask]

English needs a spelling reform.

[ForzaFiori]

I admit this happens to me sometimes. I have a horrible time spelling, even though english is my first language. I also will switch i's and e's, but that's because I have both dyslexia and dysgraphia, which probably also explains the spelling problem

[pffh]

Okay, I need this explained. There is a difference in pronunciation between "Loose" and "lose"?:smallconfused:

Yeah they sound exactly the same to me. :smallconfused:

[Claudius Maximus]

Okay, I need this explained. There is a difference in pronunciation between "Loose" and "lose"?:smallconfused:

Yeah, there is. Lose rhymes with "ooze", but loose rhymes with "moose" or "deuce".

If those examples can't help you, then I apologize. I'm not familiar with IPA.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Lose is pronounced with a voiced 's', pronounced as if it's a 'z'. Loose is a non-voiced 's', probably how you're imagining it.

Lose has an 's' pronounced as in 'as'. Unless you pronounce 'as' the same as 'ass'. Which you shouldn't.
Loose has an 's' pronounced as in 'ess'.

[Eldan]

Yeah, there is. Lose rhymes with "ooze", but loose rhymes with "moose" or "deuce".

If those examples can't help you, then I apologize. I'm not familiar with IPA.


All those words also sound the same to me :smallsigh:

Sorry.

Edit: also, as far as I know, I never noticed a difference in the pronunciation of "s" and "z" in English. German, yes, but not English.

[Fifty-Eyed Fred]

The s in 'loose' is pronounced as an s, and the s in 'lose' is pronounced as a z.



Edit: also, as far as I know, I never noticed a difference in the pronunciation of "s" and "z" in English. German, yes, but not English.
Really? So you never noticed that, for example, Sam and Zebra don't start with the same sound?
Strikes me as a tad odd, that's all.

[Claudius Maximus]

All those words also sound the same to me :smallsigh:

Sorry.

Edit: also, as far as I know, I never noticed a difference in the pronunciation of "s" and "z" in English. German, yes, but not English.

Fair enough. Different languages have different subtle sounds.

I did find IPA on them though. Lose is /luz/, but loose is /lus/. If you can find something that relates IPA to a language you're more familiar with hearing you might be able to determine the difference.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

All those words also sound the same to me :smallsigh:

Sorry.

Edit: also, as far as I know, I never noticed a difference in the pronunciation of "s" and "z" in English. German, yes, but not English.

What are the differences in German? If I can give a description of the sounds in German, it should help.

[Dr.Epic]

You lucky, lucky bastard.

My dice would disagree with that.

[Eldan]

In German, the "z" has a "t" included, basically. S is "s", Z is "ts". Totally different than in English.

[Fifty-Eyed Fred]

What are the differences in German? If I can give a description of the sounds in German, it should help.

The German z isn't pronounced as in English - it's more of a 'tz' sound.

[Threeshades]

I hate it when people spell "wiener" as "weiner". It's not only that it's a German word but even in English there is the rule "I before E, except after C."

[Zanaril]

Okay, I need this explained. There is a difference in pronunciation between "Loose" and "lose"?:smallconfused:

It might be a dialect thing, but the way I pronounce them, lose has a longer 'oo' sound and the 's' is pronounced as a 'z'.

Like the end of the word 'snooze'.

Loose is pronounced like 'mousse'.

IT IS ALL VERY ILLOGICAL.

...damn ninjas.


All those words also sound the same to me :smallsigh:

Sorry.

Edit: also, as far as I know, I never noticed a difference in the pronunciation of "s" and "z" in English. German, yes, but not English.

S is a hissing sound... z is a buzzing sound.


The German z isn't pronounced as in English - it's more of a 'tz' sound.

More like 'ts'. I'm trying to pronounce 'tz', and it just comes out as 'tuz'. :smallconfused:

[mucat]

Depending on which language you grow up speaking, your ear/brain can make a clear distinctions between certain similar phonemes, while letting other equally similar ones run together and "sound the same". It just depends on what sound distinctions are important in the languages you are accustomed to.

A Vietnamese-born friend of mine remembers that for her first few years after moving to the U.S., many pairs of English words -- "soup" and "soap", for example -- sounded exactly alike to her. Her teachers would try to correct her pronunciation by saying both words out loud, but as far as she could tell, they were saying exactly the same word twice.

Then she got used to English phonemes (she was still a small kid at the time, which makes it easier to adjust), and the difference became obvious to her. While, by contrast, I think I will never learn to hear the difference between certain Vietnamese phonemes, which I am assured sound at least as distinct, to native speakers, as the "soup/soap" example.

Adult brains are harder to retrain...

[Zanaril]

It's all pretty weird.

[Claudius Maximus]

My grasp of phonetics or whatever is probably a bit shaky at this point, but I think the difference here is that the Z is a voiced aveolar fricative whereas the S is unvoiced. So basically they're the same thing but you make a slight hum when pronouncing the Z, while the S can be pronounced without any action of the vocal cords. I would also say that the Z is slightly less intense of a "hiss."

I think mucat has a good point though. These sounds are pretty distinct to a native speaker, to the point where people would notice and be confused if you actually said "loose" instead of "lose" in a conversation, but I wouldn't be surprised if you couldn't tell the difference e.g. if your language has no Z in it to compare the S sound to.

[Spiryt]

Depending on which language you grow up speaking, your ear/brain can make a clear distinctions between certain similar phonemes, while letting other equally similar ones run together and "sound the same". It just depends on what sound distinctions are important in the languages you are accustomed to.

A Vietnamese-born friend of mine remembers that for her first few years after moving to the U.S., many pairs of English words -- "soup" and "soap", for example -- sounded exactly alike to her. Her teachers would try to correct her pronunciation by saying both words out loud, but as far as she could tell, they were saying exactly the same word twice.

Then she got used to English phonemes (she was still a small kid at the time, which makes it easier to adjust), and the difference became obvious to her. While, by contrast, I think I will never learn to hear the difference between certain Vietnamese phonemes, which I am assured sound at least as distinct, to native speakers, as the "soup/soap" example.

Adult brains are harder to retrain...

I was pretty surprised when I learned that some english speaker couldn't tell polish "ć" (or similar sound in Czech or Portugese, for example, I guess) from normal "c".

It all sounds natural to humans, but those are pretty minor things to catch just from the hearing, after all.

[pffh]

Same with that damn english v. Can´t pronounce it or hear the difference between it and w.

[Claudius Maximus]

English speaking people are always flabbergasted when I tell them that the Classical Latin V is pronounced like a W, since for us they are like completely different sounds. I suppose that's just evidence that the two letters were linked in some way in the past though.

With the V you have all sorts of action with teeth and such, while the W is just movement of the lips, in a pretty significantly different way if you ask me. To us it sounds more reasonable to confuse V with F since they actually have similar methods of pronunciation.

[Teddy]

English speaking people are always flabbergasted when I tell them that the Classical Latin V is pronounced like a W, since for us they are like completely different sounds. I suppose that's just evidence that the two letters were linked in some way in the past though.

With the V you have all sorts of action with teeth and such, while the W is just movement of the lips, in a pretty significantly different way if you ask me. To us it sounds more reasonable to confuse V with F since they actually have similar methods of pronunciation.

Heh. Here in Sweden, we pronounciate both V and W as V. We have to learn that W is almost pronounciated as O.

By the way, we've also got both an O and a U that is completely unpronounciable for pretty much any foreigner (especially the U). Even after many years, you can distinct who's native and who's not on their U's.

[Castaras]

I can understand a typo of Lose, or if English isn't your native tongue, but using it ALL. THE. TIME. is seriously annoying. :smallannoyed: This spelling mistake nearly pisses me off as much as Rogue/Rouge does. :smallfurious:

Luckily with the latter I got linked a good way of solving this problem (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10445).

[Castel]

The one that annoys me is "definitely". I've seen it as "definately", "definetly", "difenatly" and legends tell it's even been seen as "defiantly".

Though these mistakes can sometimes be amusing, alot.

[Cobra_Ikari]

The one that annoys me is "definitely". I've seen it as "definately", "definetly", "difenatly" and legends tell it's even been seen as "defiantly".

Though these mistakes can sometimes be amusing, alot.

Of these, defiantly is the one that annoys me the most. It's the one everyone picks due to spell check, and it makes NO sense in context. >.<

Worse, I get so used to having to read defiantly as definitely, that when someone actually uses defiantly correctly, I miss it. >.<

[mucat]

As long as we're branching into other linguistic complaints...is it just me, or has there been a recent explosion in the number of people who (consistently, not as a typo) write "free reign" when they mean "free rein"?

Total homonyms, I know, so it's an easy mistake to make...but I swear in the last six months I've seen this so often that I've started to be surprised when I see the correct version. And I never remember seeing it before then...

[Eldan]

Heh. Here in Sweden, we pronounciate both V and W as V. We have to learn that W is almost pronounciated as O.

By the way, we've also got both an O and a U that is completely unpronounciable for pretty much any foreigner (especially the U). Even after many years, you can distinct who's native and who's not on their U's.

Heh. Just try and get any foreigner (Germans included) to get hte two pronunciations of "ch". They are both consonants that can be held for a few seconds, but one is more of a hiss, the other is more of a scratching noise deep down in the throat.

Or the three possible pronunciations of "ä". Which of course vary by dialect. Which means every third village.

[Fuzzie Fuzz]

This bugs me too. Actually, all of the listed common tpyos in this thread bug me.
That was intentional, I swear!
The words that are always difficult for me are necessary, innocence, and definitely.

And I didn't realize the disparities between languages in which sounds are the same and which are different until I went to Italy. We were talking to someone, and told him we were going to the city of Lucca, and he immediately looked confused, and then realized that we meant "Lucca," and not "Luca." We apparently said the latter, despite the two sounding exactly the same to us, even after an exaggerated pronunciation of both.

[Teddy]

Heh. Just try and get any foreigner (Germans included) to get hte two pronunciations of "ch". They are both consonants that can be held for a few seconds, but one is more of a hiss, the other is more of a scratching noise deep down in the throat.

Or the three possible pronunciations of "ä". Which of course vary by dialect. Which means every third village.

"Pointless German class" memory, don't fail me now...

I think I know both those pronounciations of "ch". With the riddiculous amount of different "sh"-sounds in Swedish, I'd better know them... :smallamused:

The "ä", however, we've only got one pronounciation of...

[Eldan]

This is Swiss German I'm talking about. Our pronunciations of "ch" and "ä" are different than in German. Which is the fun thing when Germans think it's just a slightly weird dialect they'll be able to speak in no time :smalltongue:

Of course, before that, they stumble over the fact that we changed word order in most sentences, conjugate verbs differently, kicked out two of the three past tenses and so on...

[Teddy]

This is Swiss German I'm talking about. Our pronunciations of "ch" and "ä" are different than in German. Which is the fun thing when Germans think it's just a slightly weird dialect they'll be able to speak in no time :smalltongue:

Of course, before that, they stumble over the fact that we changed word order in most sentences, conjugate verbs differently, kicked out two of the three past tenses and so on...

Oh, right, never looked at your location (and forgot that it was mentioned earlier in this thread). Still, they're some form of "sh"-sounds, and so I'd better know how to pronounciate it at least on my third try.

And I find German to be too much grammar for my taste. Or rather, I found my German lessons to be too much grammar to be interesting, and as far as I've understood, even the Germans find it too complicated to even bother. Swiss German would probably be a bit too much to handle...

[Lateral]

WHY. My inner grammar nazi commits imaginary genocide every time I see a post fulla mangled grammar. It causes me pain.

[Winter_Wolf]

I notice the loose/lose thing, but typos and just bad spelling don't bother much until I get to the part where management does it in their official correspondence. Seriously, how can you be trusted with the welfare of a company when you can't even master basic spelling? I am of course talking about native speakers of English, and not EFL people. Blaming your secretary for it is NOT acceptable. If it goes out with your name on it, you'd better at least look at it. And if when it's obviously bad spelling and/or grammar, it makes you look like an idiot when you allow it to circulate.

Then again I believe that all management should at least read the Evil Overlord list, given their tendencies.

[mucat]

Where I DO have trouble is with lay and lie. Now those are tough.

Fortunately, the inimitable Dave Barry ("Ask Mr. Language Person") has cleared that one up for all time (http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/11/07/1909249/with-regards-to-the-aforementioned.html#ixzz17s86IpbG"):


The key to using these similar-sounding words, or "hormones," correctly is to understand that "lay" is a transient verb whose past particle is "laden" or sometimes "loan" (as in "Loan me some of them Doritos"); whereas "lie" may be used either as an article of injunction ("That's a lie!") or in a marsupial phrase ("I told you kids never to lie kangaroo parts on the ottoman!"). The easy way to remember all this is to simply memorize the phrase: "Nan Found Grubs in the Veg-O- Matic."

[Haruki-kun]

All those words also sound the same to me :smallsigh:

Sorry.

Edit: also, as far as I know, I never noticed a difference in the pronunciation of "s" and "z" in English. German, yes, but not English.

v.v

I cannot pronounce the english z with the vocal chords and all that. I just can'. I usually pronounce it as a regular s. It's the one English sound I can't do.


Fortunately, the inimitable Dave Barry ("Ask Mr. Language Person") has cleared that one up for all time (http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/11/07/1909249/with-regards-to-the-aforementioned.html#ixzz17s86IpbG"):

That... cleared up... nothing. .-.

[truemane]

The one that drives me mental, even though I know it shouldn't (because language evolves and today's errors are tomorrow's rules and blah blah blah), is the use of an apostrophe to denote a plural.

"Look at all those thing's over there."

This is becoming so widespread I've seen it on official corporate memoranda at my place of work, advertisements (local ones, but still) and one memorable time on a billboard for "Tips for Writing Good Resume's."

But still, a little piece of me dies inside every time I see it and no one says a bad word.

[Haruki-kun]

The one that drives me mental, even though I know it shouldn't (because language evolves and today's errors are tomorrow's rules and blah blah blah), is the use of an apostrophe to denote a plural.

I plead guilty here. When it's numbers or letters, I do it. For example:

"The 90's."
or
"ABC's."

[truemane]

I plead guilty here. When it's numbers or letters, I do it. For example:

"The 90's."
or
"ABC's."

Well, that practice is accepted enough, I think, to pass muster just about anywhere but a Grammar Nazi Convention. It's the apostrophes on the regular old nouns that drive me crazy.

And I tell myself that's just how it goes. 'Access' used to be something you have, now it's something you do. Humongous was once slang. People used to yell at you for splitting infinitives and ending clauses with prepositions. And, once upon a time, plurals were denoted with an s. And not an apostrophe s.

[Amiel]

Which is interesting because the two are pronounced (entirely) differently :smalltongue:

[Eldan]

Interestingly, Germans are complaining about the increasing use of an apostrophe to denote possessive, i.e. "John's shoes". In German, there would be no apostrophe there, but since everyone's learning English now, they start using it too.

[Sholos]

What I need explained is the concept of using sound to write stuff down. I never really think about what the words I'm writing sound like, except on the rare occasion I forget how to spell something and need to figure it out (though I generally rely on other means first). Certainly not for "lose" vs "loose". I just use the word that means what I need. Am I just a genius when it comes to writing properly? Also note that I catch my typos as I type, often even if I'm not looking at the screen or keyboard. Is that not normal? Am I expecting too much of the general populace?

[SaintRidley]

Well, that practice is accepted enough, I think, to pass muster just about anywhere but a Grammar Nazi Convention. It's the apostrophes on the regular old nouns that drive me crazy.

And I tell myself that's just how it goes. 'Access' used to be something you have, now it's something you do. Humongous was once slang. People used to yell at you for splitting infinitives and ending clauses with prepositions. And, once upon a time, plurals were denoted with an s. And not an apostrophe s.

Eh, two of those are rules applied from Latin grammar to a language that does not natively have such grammar. The thing with the apostrophes is that the apostrophe actually stands in for the letter (usually e) that came before the s when English nouns used to be declined for the genitive case.

[shawnhcorey]

I hate it when people spell "wiener" as "weiner". It's not only that it's a German word but even in English there is the rule "I before E, except after C."

Except when it ain't: height, weight

What bugs me are the nouns starting with 'u': an umbrella, a user

And, of course, the old classic, the usage of 'lay':

Present tense: They lay the blanket on the ground and lie on it.

Past tense: They laid the blanket on the ground and lay on it.

[Fifty-Eyed Fred]

Except when it ain't: height, weight

That's not really valid - it's a different sound to piece, receive, etc.

[truemane]

Eh, two of those are rules applied from Latin grammar to a language that does not natively have such grammar. The thing with the apostrophes is that the apostrophe actually stands in for the letter (usually e) that came before the s when English nouns used to be declined for the genitive case.

All true enough, but irrelevant for the purposes of this conversation. The source of the rule has no ompact on how the rule it used or how it changs over time. The rules on infinitives didn't change because the smart people all said, 'It's just Latin! Poo on that!" and voted on it. It changed over time and common usage because that's what languages do.

Same with the apostrophe. If enough people use it for a plural, it becomes an accepted practice, and then it becomes the rule. 30 years from now they'll teach it in schools.

It's a perfectly cromulent phenomenon.

[Teddy]

WHY. My inner grammar nazi commits imaginary genocide every time I see a post fulla mangled grammar. It causes me pain.

What I meant was that my German classes were too much boring and complicated grammar to feel appealing to me. The fact that the teachers weren't all the best might have had a part in it too.


Interestingly, Germans are complaining about the increasing use of an apostrophe to denote possessive, i.e. "John's shoes". In German, there would be no apostrophe there, but since everyone's learning English now, they start using it too.

Same thing over here. It's most oftenly used together with names.

Also, another English practice that is sneaking its way into the Swedish language is writing words that should be toghether separately. To give you some sort of perspective: where the English rule is "if you're unsure, write separately", the Swedish one is "if you're unsure, write together". Many words have different meanings written together and separately. For example: "sjuksköterska" (nurse, or more literally, treater of ill) "sjuk sköterska" (ill treater). This must be the favourite pet peeve of all the Swedish grammar nazis out there.

[Castaras]

Interestingly, Germans are complaining about the increasing use of an apostrophe to denote possessive, i.e. "John's shoes". In German, there would be no apostrophe there, but since everyone's learning English now, they start using it too.

"John's Shoes" would mean "John is Shoes". :smallconfused:

[Eldan]

"John's Shoes" would mean "John is Shoes". :smallconfused:

I know!

It's even wrong in English. But people still do it in German.

[Mercenary Pen]

"John's Shoes" would mean "John is Shoes". :smallconfused:

Except that there is a second use of the apostrophe to denote possession, with "its" being the exception to that to prevent confusion with "it's" the contraction of "it is".

Or at least that is how I was taught it.

[Eldan]

Argh!
Now you have ruined my grammar sense. Which one's correct now? I can't remember! :smallsigh:

[Tirian]

Argh!
Now you have ruined my grammar sense. Which one's correct now? I can't remember! :smallsigh:

"it's" is a contraction for "it is"
"its" is a possessive, meaning "belong to it".

If it helps, here (http://nodivisions.com/music/songs/Strongbad-Its.mp3) is Strong Bad's helpful reminder in song.

[RebelRogue]

Interestingly, Germans are complaining about the increasing use of an apostrophe to denote possessive, i.e. "John's shoes". In German, there would be no apostrophe there, but since everyone's learning English now, they start using it too.
We have the exact same problem in danish :smallannoyed:


Also, another English practice that is sneaking its way into the Swedish language is writing words that should be toghether separately. To give you some sort of perspective: where the English rule is "if you're unsure, write separately", the Swedish one is "if you're unsure, write together". Many words have different meanings written together and separately. For example: "sjuksköterska" (nurse, or more literally, treater of ill) "sjuk sköterska" (ill treater). This must be the favourite pet peeve of all the Swedish grammar nazis out there.
This too :smallsigh:

But the worst offense to me, is that a lot of people around here have trouble differentiating infinitive and present tense (they often sound very similar). I die a little inside each time I see that (i.e. numerous times every day) :smallmad:

[SaintRidley]

All true enough, but irrelevant for the purposes of this conversation. The source of the rule has no ompact on how the rule it used or how it changs over time. The rules on infinitives didn't change because the smart people all said, 'It's just Latin! Poo on that!" and voted on it. It changed over time and common usage because that's what languages do.


More that the split infinitives rule was never an actual feature of the language in the first place and the practice has become more accepted over time because the "rule" was senseless regarding English grammar anyway.

[Eldan]

Also, another English practice that is sneaking its way into the Swedish language is writing words that should be toghether separately. To give you some sort of perspective: where the English rule is "if you're unsure, write separately", the Swedish one is "if you're unsure, write together". Many words have different meanings written together and separately. For example: "sjuksköterska" (nurse, or more literally, treater of ill) "sjuk sköterska" (ill treater). This must be the favourite pet peeve of all the Swedish grammar nazis out there.

Yup, there's something similar going on in German, but mostly with people using dashes in words that should just be written together. I.e. Apfelbaum (apple tree) as Apfel-Baum. Not an example anyone would do, but in longer words, it's coming up more often.

[Mercenary Pen]

Yup, there's something similar going on in German, but mostly with people using dashes in words that should just be written together. I.e. Apfelbaum (apple tree) as Apfel-Baum. Not an example anyone would do, but in longer words, it's coming up more often.

I'm wondering if this is because after a certain number of characters without a break internet servers/browsers will deliberately insert a space (on Giantitp I think this happens at 50 characters) and thus it might be better to split the word where it would more naturally break rather than have the break turn up where it would more thoroughly disrupt the sense of the word.

[Eldan]

Well, I don't visit the German parts of the Internet very often, to be honest. I've mostly seen it written on paper. Signs, newspapers, that kind of thing. A few books, even.

And I think even in German you'd have to try hard to make a word with more than fifty letters.

[Mercenary Pen]

And I think even in German you'd have to try hard to make a word with more than fifty letters.

Perhaps so, but I think I read once that the longest German word was eighty eight letters and involved a boating club in Austria...

[Eldan]

Ah, that one.

If I remember correctly:
Factory for buttons on the hatband of the hat of a captain of the danube steam shipping company.

That's what I meant with trying hard: in German, you can theoretically make words of any length by stringing more and more nouns together. That one up there is actually a joke, or even a game for when you are really, really bored: add more nouns to it so it still remotely makes sense.
E.g:

Hinges on the gate of the Factory for buttons on the hatband of the hat of a captain of the danube steam shipping company.

[Mercenary Pen]

Ah, that one.

If I remember correctly:
Factory for buttons on the hatband of the hat of a captain of the danube steam shipping company.

That's what I meant with trying hard: in German, you can theoretically make words of any length by stringing more and more nouns together. That one up there is actually a joke, or even a game for when you are really, really bored: add more nouns to it so it still remotely makes sense.
E.g:

Hinges on the gate of the Factory for buttons on the hatband of the hat of a captain of the danube steam shipping company.

My hat off to you for actually knowing the word I was talking about... But you can't have the buttons from the hatband.:smalltongue:

[Ragitsu]

Has anyone mentioned the substitution of "wont" for want?

[Amiel]

Argh!
Now you have ruined my grammar sense. Which one's correct now? I can't remember! :smallsigh:

John's shoes would mean these shoes belong to John; as it denotes the possessive form.
John's Shoes would mean John is Shoes.
However, John's Stuff is apparently perfectly acceptable.
Although, it would be all depend on context.

Don't worry about the confusion, English breaks so many of its own rules that this is the natural state of affairs :smalltongue:

[Mikka]

Its because the goverments grip on education is to lose. They need too be more tough on the matter.

[Sipex]

I used to let spelling and grammatical errors bug me a lot and you know what the end product was?

A headache.

I agree with others here, don't let it bug you. People are going to make mistakes and it's not because they're stupid plebians who are below you, it's because people have different strengths (even intellectually).

Also, if you think spelling errors automatically make a person stupid you should re-evaluate your outlook on life. People are far less stupid than we give them credit for and it's just one more generalisation the internet likes throwing around that causes unneeded headaches.

TLDR: Don't get so wound up by trivial matters. You're only making it worse for yourself.

[Ragitsu]

The problem is that, when command of a language gets weak enough, online, it pretty much becomes the equivalent of too much slang/stuttering in person.

[An Enemy Spy]

I used to let spelling and grammatical errors bug me a lot and you know what the end product was?

A headache.

I agree with others here, don't let it bug you. People are going to make mistakes and it's not because they're stupid plebians who are below you, it's because people have different strengths (even intellectually).

Also, if you think spelling errors automatically make a person stupid you should re-evaluate your outlook on life. People are far less stupid than we give them credit for and it's just one more generalisation the internet likes throwing around that causes unneeded headaches.

TLDR: Don't get so wound up by trivial matters. You're only making it worse for yourself.

When did I ever say I think spelling errors mean you're stupid? I have a friend who is one of the smartest people I know and he couldn't spell his way out of a wet paper bag. It just bugs me because the lose loose one is so prevalent. It's just one of my pet peeves, like this guy who always said 'Edward Scissorshand' and I just wanted to scream in his face "Scissorhands! It's Scissorhands!"

[potatocubed]

Has anyone mentioned the substitution of "wont" for want?

I see the opposite a lot: the substitution of 'want' or 'won't' for 'wont'.

('Wont' meaning tendency, or predeliction, or habit: "I was browsing the GitP forums today, as is my wont.")

I think it falls into the same category as using 'effect' as a verb (meaning 'to bring about', as in "to effect a change"); it's an archaic and rare use of English just quirky enough to trip up people who aren't serious about their linguistification. :smalltongue:

[Sipex]

Oh spy, I wasn't saying you were, that post was directed at the general group. I find one of the more common traits of the spelling/grammar nazi is a 'higher than thou' attitude that is exuded yet not put forward by all.

[Amiel]

I don't know whether the weather would be wont to change. I wouldn't want it to suddenly hail, though the hale shan't fear such dreary descending. Dissenting opinions may differ.
It'd be a chance to test their mettle, though it'd sound like drums upon metal. I do hope they keep a presence of mind to ensure that Christmas presents aren't soaked.