PDA

View Full Version : Most Malignant Malapropisms



quinron
2016-05-26, 12:08 AM
I just listened to the GM Word of the Week podcast on "Eldritch," which talked about the "Lovecraft words" that GMs throw into flavor text as filler without using them properly, and I've been watching a lot of Raising Hope lately. So I've had malapropisms on the mind.

What's your most vexing misused word in gaming? I get really frustrated whenever people get the "die/dice" pluralization backward. I get it - you use the plural more often than the singular - but still.

Geddy2112
2016-05-26, 08:53 AM
I am pretty guilty as describing a race as sentient when I mean to say sapient. While it is true that sapient races are sentient, I still use the wrong word most of the time.

Cazero
2016-05-26, 09:40 AM
I am pretty guilty as describing a race as sentient when I mean to say sapient. While it is true that sapient races are sentient, I still use the wrong word most of the time.

You probably meant specie, not race :smallwink:

goto124
2016-05-26, 09:43 AM
Species may be the more accurate term, but it sounds sci-fi-y and out of place for a fantasy world without such sci-fi themes, while 'race' would still fit in the same fantasy world.

Segev
2016-05-26, 09:45 AM
I am pretty guilty as describing a race as sentient when I mean to say sapient. While it is true that sapient races are sentient, I still use the wrong word most of the time.

I'll be honest: while I'm usually a stickler for precision, the arguments over which specifically means what so often devolve to the point where the only agreement is that NEITHER "properly" means what people want to say when they use them in conversation (i.e., that a creature has an intelligence and self-awareness on a human level, above that of any animal, and is thus a person worthy of equal rights to any human being) that striving for precision there leads only to confusion and inability to properly discuss the subject. Thus, I will use the two interchangeably and colloquially, rather than precisely denotatively.


One that inordinately bugs me is when people refer to "a criteria" or, worse, "several criterions." "Criteria" is the plural of "criterion."

One that I use on purpose which throws some people is the "-trix" or "-tix" suffix for female versions of words. It actively does bother me when people refer to a male "Incantatrix." The male is an "Incantatar."

hymer
2016-05-26, 10:02 AM
The male is an "Incantatar."

'Incantator', yes?

One of my friends recently showed me some DM notes, and I realized that he and his group use 'murder hole' when they mean 'arrow slit'.

Beleriphon
2016-05-26, 10:02 AM
I am pretty guilty as describing a race as sentient when I mean to say sapient. While it is true that sapient races are sentient, I still use the wrong word most of the time.

Eh, sentient vs sapient isn't that big an issue, there is a technical definition difference, but colloquially they mean the same thing.

A better malapropism would be a species that displays the same sufficience as humans.

Segev
2016-05-26, 10:11 AM
Eh, sentient vs sapient isn't that big an issue, there is a technical definition difference, but colloquially they mean the same thing.

A better malapropism would be a species that displays the same sufficience as humans.

You've lost me on this one; I fear I do not know what you mean. This may be a use of the term with which I am unfamiliar, or it may be that I'm missing a joke.


One that always amuses me is when "elf" or "dwarf" is called a "species." (Heck, I think technically using "species" as a singular is wrong; it might be "specie.") Elves and orcs, at the very least, are races of a greater species that includes humans: we wouldn't have half-elves and half-orcs, otherwise. Whether dwarves or gnomes or halflings really are a separate specie unto themselves probably depends on the setting.

Of course, dragons seem to be members of every species...or magic just makes the very definition of the word meaningless.

Satinavian
2016-05-26, 10:43 AM
species is the correct singular term.

If in case of elfs, dwarfs, orcs etc. species or race is correct, is a matter of debate.
Yes, being able to have common offspring is a big indicator. But there are always exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligerhttp://.

And even if standard fantasy does feature half elfs and half orcs, it doesn't feature any elf/orc hybrids, an omission that would be strange when they are only different races.

Beleriphon
2016-05-26, 10:48 AM
You've lost me on this one; I fear I do not know what you mean. This may be a use of the term with which I am unfamiliar, or it may be that I'm missing a joke.

Malapropisms are specifically using a word that does not mean what the speaker intends at all. I've essentially changed sufficient to sufficience in place of sentience or sapience.

awa
2016-05-26, 10:59 AM
edit either ninja or need to read other people posts better
technically they could be different species because species is such a nebulous thing for example polar bears and brown bears are separate species because they are geographically isolated but they actually can reproduce and produce viable young

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem

OldTrees1
2016-05-26, 11:29 AM
You've lost me on this one; I fear I do not know what you mean. This may be a use of the term with which I am unfamiliar, or it may be that I'm missing a joke.


One that always amuses me is when "elf" or "dwarf" is called a "species." (Heck, I think technically using "species" as a singular is wrong; it might be "specie.") Elves and orcs, at the very least, are races of a greater species that includes humans: we wouldn't have half-elves and half-orcs, otherwise. Whether dwarves or gnomes or halflings really are a separate specie unto themselves probably depends on the setting.

Of course, dragons seem to be members of every species...or magic just makes the very definition of the word meaningless.

Biologists have multiple different definitions of the word species. All of which are useful but have different criteria. As such Elves and Dwarves are both separate and the same species depending on the definition used. They are probably the same species if they can interbreed to create viable offspring lineages. However they are also phenotypically distant enough to be considered separate species. If they did have a common ancestor, then we would expect the two populations to be undergoing speciation(one species splitting into more than one). In that process the phenotypical differences typically occur before the reproductive compatibility diverges.

Xuc Xac
2016-05-26, 12:56 PM
It bothers me when people say "fire an arrow" when they aren't actually burning it.

the_david
2016-05-26, 01:03 PM
Apocalypse...

The Glyphstone
2016-05-26, 01:04 PM
Apocalypse...

In a similar vein, 'decimation'.

Segev
2016-05-26, 01:06 PM
In a similar vein, 'decimation'.

Yes! That one actually grates each time I hear it used incorrectly, because I initially expect it to mean its denotative meaning. So it doesn't sound all that bad, to me, until I realize what they meant.



Tangentially, "decimate" is used as a term-of-art in signal processing. It is used incorrectly, there, too, but in a strange way: "decimate-by-two" means "remove every other sample." "Decimate-by-ten" would be literal, denotative decimation, as you remove every 10th sample.

nedz
2016-05-26, 01:47 PM
Tangentially, "decimate" is used as a term-of-art in signal processing. It is used incorrectly, there, too, but in a strange way: "decimate-by-two" means "remove every other sample." "Decimate-by-ten" would be literal, denotative decimation, as you remove every 10th sample.

"Completly Decimated" would often be used correctly in this case then ?

The 10 in Decimated is a figurative number anyway.

Segev
2016-05-26, 02:58 PM
"Completly Decimated" would often be used correctly in this case then ?

The 10 in Decimated is a figurative number anyway.

Er, it does literally mean, "reduce by one-tenth."

Beleriphon
2016-05-26, 04:47 PM
It bothers me when people say "fire an arrow" when they aren't actually burning it.

As opposed to those loose arrows, that will be loosed from any old bow.

Mordar
2016-05-26, 04:49 PM
As opposed to those loose arrows, that will be loosed from any old bow.

Often loose in the quiver too...or in the shipping crate... :smallwink:

nedz
2016-05-26, 07:26 PM
Er, it does literally mean, "reduce by one-tenth."

Literally yes, figuratively no.

kraftcheese
2016-05-26, 07:53 PM
Yes! That one actually grates each time I hear it used incorrectly, because I initially expect it to mean its denotative meaning. So it doesn't sound all that bad, to me, until I realize what they meant.



Tangentially, "decimate" is used as a term-of-art in signal processing. It is used incorrectly, there, too, but in a strange way: "decimate-by-two" means "remove every other sample." "Decimate-by-ten" would be literal, denotative decimation, as you remove every 10th sample.

But decimate hasn't really been used to mean "offing a tenth of your troops for being naughty" for a long time; I mean even if you're looking at the dictionary definition, the Roman usage is secondary to the more commonly used, "kill/destroy/pillage with extreme prejudice".

I just feel like it's a bit of a hypercorrection to suggest that we should only use words in their original form and meaning, even if that original meaning has been defunct as an action for AT LEAST hundreds of years, if not thousands.

Vitruviansquid
2016-05-26, 08:02 PM
How about "bonii" instead "bonuses?" I know that "bonus" has roots in Latin, but come on, it's well-bastardized by English now.

"Malus" is just egregious, though. It sounds too much like "Malice" and there is already a word for the opposite of "bonus" anyways, and that would be "penalty."

Segev
2016-05-26, 08:15 PM
But decimate hasn't really been used to mean "offing a tenth of your troops for being naughty" for a long time; I mean even if you're looking at the dictionary definition, the Roman usage is secondary to the more commonly used, "kill/destroy/pillage with extreme prejudice".

I just feel like it's a bit of a hypercorrection to suggest that we should only use words in their original form and meaning, even if that original meaning has been defunct as an action for AT LEAST hundreds of years, if not thousands.

My complaint is less "it's not the original Roman usage" and more that "deci-" literally means "one-tenth."

It's an etymological complaint more than anything else.

quinron
2016-05-26, 08:27 PM
My problem with "decimate" is when it's used to mean complete or near-complete destruction; that should be "annihilate." I'd use "decimate" if something were seriously damaged, but not to the point that it was completely destroyed, e.g., an annihilated city is razed from the face of the earth, while a decimated city will never be the same, but can continue functioning in hardship.

No-Kill Cleric
2016-06-04, 06:09 PM
The misuse of infamous irks me to no end.

Jeff the Green
2016-06-04, 08:39 PM
How about djinni/djinn, efreeti/effreet? The ones with the -i are singular. They're not from Latin, people.


How about "bonii" instead "bonuses?" I know that "bonus" has roots in Latin, but come on, it's well-bastardized by English now.

It wouldn't even be bonii. That'd be the plural for bonius if it existed. The plural for bonus is boni.


"Malus" is just egregious, though. It sounds too much like "Malice" and there is already a word for the opposite of "bonus" anyways, and that would be "penalty."

There's another one. :smalltongue:

Aedilred
2016-06-05, 12:02 AM
How about djinni/djinn, efreeti/effreet? The ones with the -i are singular. They're not from Latin, people.

It wouldn't even be bonii. That'd be the plural for bonius if it existed. The plural for bonus is boni.


If in doubt, stick some "i"s on the end. Latin plurals go for everything, right?

I've recently got back into playing Rome Total War (the original) and its three families, the Julii (no problems here), the Scipii (um) and the Brutii (lord help us).

The way Roman family names work, "Julii" is the plural for members of the "Julia" family (or gens). Men of the family use "Julius" as their proper name. So the "house of the Julii" is not incorrect in itself, although the "house of Julia" would arguably be moreso.

The "Scipii" are clearly meant to reference the famous Scipio and his family. Scipio, however, is not a gens name, it's a cognomen. A hereditary cognomen, it's true, but not in itself a family name per se. The family name for most of the Scipios was "Cornelia" (therefore Cornelius, Cornelii) although because Scipio was a cognomen, if they were adopted into other families they would sometimes keep the Scipio name while otherwise leaving the family, as with the last significant Scipio, who was a Caecilius Metellus, not a Cornelius.

To make matters worse, the plural of "Scipio" isn't "Scipii", it's "Scipiones" (in Latin) or "Scipios" in English.

"Brutii" suffers from the same problem. Like "Scipio", it's a cognomen, not a family name (that's "Junia/Junius/Junii" for their family). And, again, "Brutii" isn't the plural for "Brutus" but for "Brutius".

It's not even consistent in its inaccuracy, since "Julii" is correct. To match the others, it should be "Caesarii". In a game which is otherwise mostly fairly well-researched, it's maddening.

One I ran into recently was "arquebi" as a plural for "arquebus". No.
"Pegasi" is another common one. I can just about accept that "pegasus" now refers to a type of creature as opposed to a proper noun, but "pegasi" always grates for some reason.
D&D's "medusas" and "gorgons" similarly.

hymer
2016-06-05, 05:18 AM
Scipii (um)

That would be the Cornelii Scipiones, a branch of the Cornelii family.

Edit: What did you hide all that in a spoiler for? :smallredface:

Jay R
2016-06-05, 12:11 PM
One that always amuses me is when "elf" or "dwarf" is called a "species." (Heck, I think technically using "species" as a singular is wrong; it might be "specie.")

Sure looks like it ought to be, doesn't it? But actually, "species" began as a Latin word, and really is the singular form. "Specie" is the ablative case, and is rarely seen in academic language in the expression "in specie", which translates as "in appearance". Using "specie" as a singular form in English in any other way is incorrect.

And yes, "species" is its own plural form, like "fish" or "deer".


Elves and orcs, at the very least, are races of a greater species that includes humans: we wouldn't have half-elves and half-orcs, otherwise. Whether dwarves or gnomes or halflings really are a separate specie unto themselves probably depends on the setting.

Of course, dragons seem to be members of every species...or magic just makes the very definition of the word meaningless.

That's good real-world science, akin to the knowledge that fireballs don't appear out of nowhere, that there are 92 naturally occurring elements, and that humans cannot levitate or fly.

Magic makes virtually all technical scientific generalities invalid. In a world in which energy is not conserved, people can be turned to stone and back, wingless creatures can fly, and the cube-square law is clearly not even a guideline, there's no basis for assuming separate species can't interbreed - especially when there are so many examples of them doing so.

You tell that owl to leave the bear alone.

Jay R
2016-06-05, 12:35 PM
"Pegasi" is another common one. I can just about accept that "pegasus" now refers to a type of creature as opposed to a proper noun, but "pegasi" always grates for some reason.
D&D's "medusas" and "gorgons" similarly.

Pegasus and Medusa are individual names, but Medusa was one of the three Gorgons.

Jeff the Green
2016-06-05, 02:54 PM
Pegasus and Medusa are individual names, but Medusa was one of the three Gorgons.

Right, but the point is that if the generic winged horse is called a "pegasus" after "Pegasus", the plural wouldn't be "pegasi".

Jay R
2016-06-05, 06:23 PM
Right, but the point is that if the generic winged horse is called a "pegasus" after "Pegasus", the plural wouldn't be "pegasi".

I don't see why not. The Greek name Πήγασος (Pegasos), or the Latin version Pegasus, are both second declension masculine nouns. While one never refers to more than one of a unique beast, the form is clearly known. The correct plural would be Πήγασι or Pegasi. That's been the correct plural for a couple of millennia.

In English, a pegasus has been a term for a flying horse generally, and Lydgate used the same plural in the 1400s (although he spelled it "pegasee"; Spelling was not consistent in English yet.)

The only place where any other plural is used, as far as I know, is in English heraldry, where either version - pegasi or pegasusses - can be used.

Jeff the Green
2016-06-05, 06:49 PM
I don't see why not. The Greek name Πήγασος (Pegasos), or the Latin version Pegasus, are both second declension masculine nouns. While one never refers to more than one of a unique beast, the form is clearly known. The correct plural would be Πήγασι or Pegasi. That's been the correct plural for a couple of millennia.

In English, a pegasus has been a term for a flying horse generally, and Lydgate used the same plural in the 1400s (although he spelled it "pegasee"; Spelling was not consistent in English yet.)

The only place where any other plural is used, as far as I know, is in English heraldry, where either version - pegasi or pegasusses - can be used.

It's really been part of English for too long. It's no longer particularly Latinate and so the English plural should be used. Just like it's "octopuses", not "octopudes".

Jay R
2016-06-05, 09:18 PM
It's really been part of English for too long. It's no longer particularly Latinate and so the English plural should be used. Just like it's "octopuses", not "octopudes".

I don't know what "should" has to do with it.

It's been part of English as "pegasi" for centuries. That is the English plural. "Pegasusses" is both extremely rare and silly-sounding. The only plural I'd ever consider other than "pegasi" is "winged horses".

goto124
2016-06-06, 01:53 AM
It's been part of English as "pegasi" for centuries. That is the English plural. "Pegasusses" is both extremely rare and silly-sounding. The only plural I'd ever consider other than "pegasi" is "winged horses".

I can't imagine having to pronounce 'pegasusses' over and over again to my players... :smalltongue:

Kami2awa
2016-06-06, 02:03 AM
I don't tend to mind malapropisms at all. We all do it - languages are difficult things. Having learned a few and lived abroad I'm quite aware of how much of a pain it is to be picked up on small errors. Hatred of linguistic errors makes me anaspeptic, frasmotic and even compunctuous at times.

hymer
2016-06-06, 02:26 AM
I don't tend to mind malapropisms at all. We all do it - languages are difficult things. Having learned a few and lived abroad I'm quite aware of how much of a pain it is to be picked up on small errors. Hatred of linguistic errors makes me anaspeptic, frasmotic and even compunctuous at times.

Does it cause you pericombobulations?

Spartakus
2016-06-06, 09:13 AM
I don't tend to mind malapropisms at all. We all do it - languages are difficult things. Having learned a few and lived abroad I'm quite aware of how much of a pain it is to be picked up on small errors. Hatred of linguistic errors makes me anaspeptic, frasmotic and even compunctuous at times.
Does it cause you pericombobulations?

Let me offer you my most enthusiastic contrafibularities for throwing in this reference.

Segev
2016-06-06, 11:06 AM
The only plural I'd ever consider other than "pegasi" is "winged horses".

Nonsense. It's clearly "winged horsies," or, in formal discussion, "winged ponies." Just ask any native English-speaking 6-year-old.

Aedilred
2016-06-06, 11:26 AM
I don't know what "should" has to do with it.

It's been part of English as "pegasi" for centuries. That is the English plural. "Pegasusses" is both extremely rare and silly-sounding. The only plural I'd ever consider other than "pegasi" is "winged horses".

"Pterippi". But then nobody would know what you meant.

Millstone85
2016-06-06, 11:27 AM
Nonsense. It's clearly "winged horsies," or, in formal discussion, "winged ponies." Just ask any native English-speaking 6-year-old.Okay now I just have to throw that quote.
Well, it's only 'cause you mean old pegasusususes are making it snow like crazy!

Pex
2016-06-06, 11:47 AM
People typing "loose" or "looser" when they mean "lose" or "loser".

People typing "it's" when they mean "its".

People typing or saying "being that" when they mean "since" or "because".

People typing "would of", "could of", "should of" when they mean "would have or would've", "could have or could've", "should have or should've".

Mixing up "there", "they're", and "their".

"Rouge" instead of "rogue" only bothers me when in a thread title.

/rant
:smallbiggrin:

Lord Torath
2016-06-06, 02:04 PM
I've always been fond of getting upset over accept vs except, which are very nearly antonyms. (Isn't that what it comes down to? You feel just that littlest bit superior than the other person? It's completely contemptible, of course, but there you are!)

Someone on these very boards used "affect" as a noun and "effect" as a verb in a single sentence, correctly I might add. Although usually people using "affect" as a noun, really mean "effect", and those using "effect" as a verb mean "affect". Usually.

But these are more generic malapropisms, rather than specific to RPGs.

Max_Killjoy
2016-06-06, 02:06 PM
"Long sword" to refer to a one-handed weapon.

Telonius
2016-06-06, 02:20 PM
One that inordinately bugs me is when people refer to "a criteria" or, worse, "several criterions." "Criteria" is the plural of "criterion."


I've given up on trying to make "data" agree with the verb. Even Star Trek confused the issue.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/iJ3ygrRMBX4/maxresdefault.jpg

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/startrek/images/6/61/Data_and_Lore.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20121222235758

http://i.stack.imgur.com/Z3XwI.jpg

Segev
2016-06-06, 05:19 PM
I've given up on trying to make "data" agree with the verb. Even Star Trek confused the issue.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/iJ3ygrRMBX4/maxresdefault.jpg

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/startrek/images/6/61/Data_and_Lore.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20121222235758

http://i.stack.imgur.com/Z3XwI.jpg

http://www.loony-archivist.com/gargs/puck/puck2.jpg

JBPuffin
2016-06-06, 09:55 PM
I've given up on trying to make "data" agree with the verb. Even Star Trek confused the issue.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/iJ3ygrRMBX4/maxresdefault.jpg

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/startrek/images/6/61/Data_and_Lore.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20121222235758

http://i.stack.imgur.com/Z3XwI.jpg


http://www.loony-archivist.com/gargs/puck/puck2.jpg

The pun...is the winner.

I think some of these are more typos and things than anything. "Decimate" is a really strange one - usually I'll just use "smashed" or "destroyed" or "nuked to hell" rather than mess with those.

Armageddon and Ragnarok get me, though - these are prophesized mythological (I mean, Armageddon's Christian, but even as one I'm fine calling it mythological :/ ) events, not words for "WAR!" War never changes

goto124
2016-06-06, 10:08 PM
"Rouge" instead of "rogue" only bothers me when in a thread title.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/26/Rogue_squadron_2_Box.jpg
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--JlkKZ0yk--/as1kfjteewxj15mtrnqd.jpg

Jay R
2016-06-07, 07:14 AM
You feel just that littlest bit superior than the other person? It's completely contemptible, of course, but there you are!

Just the opposite, actually. I don't get annoyed when small children do it, because I do feel superior to them in language use and experience. It's normal for them not to have learned enough to speak correctly yet. When they refer to "dices", it's an endearing childish mistake, and we smile indulgently.

I'm annoyed when somebody as adult and literate as I am is making a childish error.

Gnoman
2016-06-07, 08:14 AM
Armageddon and Ragnarok get me, though - these are prophesized mythological (I mean, Armageddon's Christian, but even as one I'm fine calling it mythological :/ ) events, not words for "WAR!" War never changes

Likewise, "Apocalypse" technically means the same the as "revelation", but has become a term for the end of the world as we know it (and I feel fine) because the best known Revelation is a prophecy about ending the world.

Using Armageddon or Ragnarok (both of which are "the final battle that will end the world") for a generic End Of Days isn't really all that wrong a usage. It isn't exactly uncommon to see phrases like "If we don't do something we'll have a Chernobyl on our hands" after all.

Segev
2016-06-07, 01:19 PM
Agreed. Allusions are perfectly valid uses of words. It's a form of metaphor.

"Okay, Romeo," said sarcastically to somebody implies that he's being overly romantic (among other possible implications relating to the rationality and reasonability of said romance); it doesn't mean you think his name is 'Romeo.'

JAL_1138
2016-06-07, 06:43 PM
"Defiantly" for "definitely."
"Pacific" for "specific."
"For all intensive purposes."
"Sixteenth Chapel."
"Approximate" for "appropriate (verb)."
"Malapropism" for "Spoonerism."
"Malapropism" for "Mondegreen."
"Malapropism" for "eggcorn."
"Malapropism" for "improper declensions of nouns in a dead language."
"Malapropism" for "shift in meaning over centuries."

Pex
2016-06-07, 07:08 PM
Even though I do it myself I still find myself bothered by split infinitives. Current English grammar accepts it as valid now, but it's a hard long time custom for me to get over. When I was a kid I'd hear Shatner say "to boldly go", and I'd have no idea what he's saying. What the heck does "boldligo" mean? :smallbiggrin: At least I was able to stop putting a double space at the end of every period years ago.

Interesting, back when it was poor grammar I'd hear "ain't" all the time. Ever since it was put in the dictionary as an acceptable slang I haven't heard it since in conversation.

Aedilred
2016-06-07, 07:42 PM
Split infinitives (and clause-concluding prepositions) aren't technically incorrect, grammatically speaking, but I don't think that necessarily lets them off the hook. There are plenty of ways of writing or speaking in a grammatically correct fashion and yet badly. I think I'd classify both as "inelegant, most of the time". There are times when it's even worse to try to write around them, but I still think it's best to avoid them if possible.

Something which, as far as I'm aware, is incorrect, and bugs me no end, is extraneous "of"s between adjectives and nouns. This is almost exclusively in the formula along the lines of "how big of a deal is..." and I call it Buzzfeed-speak, since that's where I first noticed it, and it seems to happen a lot.

Another one, although this is getting into the realms of the strictly vernacular, is "crush" used to mean "succeed" in a non-competitive context. I don't know why it annoys me as much as it does, but it sets my teeth on edge. I see that less than I used to, though; I think it peaked in about 2011, and seemed to remain mostly in the US rather than here - I'm not sure I've ever heard it in "live" speech, thankfully.

JAL_1138
2016-06-07, 07:51 PM
Even though I do it myself I still find myself bothered by split infinitives. Current English grammar accepts it as valid now, but it's a hard long time custom for me to get over. When I was a kid I'd hear Shatner say "to boldly go", and I'd have no idea what he's saying. What the heck does "boldligo" mean? :smallbiggrin: At least I was able to stop putting a double space at the end of every period years ago.

Interesting, back when it was poor grammar I'd hear "ain't" all the time. Ever since it was put in the dictionary as an acceptable slang I haven't heard it since in conversation.

Split infinitives weren't problematic in English grammar until some prescriptive grammarians in the 1800s decided they didn't like it and started publishing comments to that effect. (Tangentially, the rule against stranded prepositions has a similar origin, and is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put.)

"Ain't" is a common, everyday word in Appalachia (and surrounding areas shortly outside the mountains proper) at any rate. Frequently as a double negative--it sounds odd as a single negative in most cases. However, it's uncommon in written communication, even here.

Jay R
2016-06-07, 08:02 PM
"Malapropism" for "shift in meaning over centuries."

Agreed. Etymology is not definition, or "digital computing" would mean counting on your fingers.

Pex
2016-06-13, 11:14 PM
A few more that irritate me, plus expressions. :smallsmile:

Writing "insure" when you mean "ensure".

Writing "defiantly" when you mean "definitely".

Using the term "to try and <insert verb>". There's no need for "try and".

Using the expressions "if you catch my drift", "if you get my meaning", "right <insert name>?" and others of that ilk.

veti
2016-06-13, 11:39 PM
"The populous" is a true malapropism that never fails to irk me. (You probably meant "the populace".) It's right up there with "rouge".

Ditto "free reign" and "reign in". I get that nobody knows anything about horses any more, but they've still seen them in movies, right? They know what a rein is? Please?

"The hoi polloi" always brings out the pedant in me, but it's not a malapropism. Just a minor, nit-picky misuse.

Kami2awa
2016-06-14, 02:09 AM
Does it cause you pericombobulations?

No, that would be silly.

hymer
2016-06-14, 06:43 AM
No, that would be silly.

As silly as 'C: Big, blue wobbly thing that mermaids live in'?

Back on track, I recently saw 'apprehension' for 'comprehension', and 'suppository' for 'repository', though not in an RPG situation. I guess using 'roll' for 'create' a character that takes no rolls whatsoever to create comes close to counting, though not really a proper malapropism.