"All intensive purposes." "Baited breath." "Tough road to hoe." "Free reign." These are all common misspellings. At some point, they become common enough to be correct alternative spellings, and some may be correct even now in their own way: "Free reign," especially, makes sense as a figurative phrase. But wise law students should be careful not to use such phrases, because whether or not they are in some metaphysical sense incorrect, they are likely to seem incorrect and annoying to many readers (including judges, partners, and other people you are trying to impress and persuade).
I'm looking for more examples to caution my students against, but I'm looking for ones that really are common enough to deserve caution. So my challenge: Which phrases can you come up with in which the incorrect (or, if you prefer, nontraditional) version gets at least 25% of the google hits that the traditional version gets?
Please post your answers below, with google's estimated count for the incorrect version followed by the count for the correct version, e.g.,
baited breath / 309,000 / 449,000
Please keep in mind the possibility that the seemingly incorrect phrase can actually be properly used in some contexts (e.g., "key tenant" can either be a misspelling of "key tenet" or a term of art in commercial real estate), and eyeball the results to see whether they might be mostly false positives.
"doesn't jibe" = 72,000
"doesn't jive" = 75,000
"didn't jibe" = 21,100
"didn't jive" = 22,700
"I'd just assume buy a Dell . . . ."
See also the Eggcorn Database.
"Baited breath" describes a situation in which the cat eats cheese before settling down bu the mouse hole.
I think MacGuffin was trying to distinguish situations in which a writer chooses the wrong homonym (e.g., "baited breath") and those in which the writer, were he speaking, would actually choose to say the wrong word (e.g., "tough road to hoe"). If I'm guessing correctly, his irritation is increased in the latter case because it's understandable to pick the wrong homonym if one's never seen it in print before, but (at least in theory), an educated author/speaker should know that rows (presumably in a field) are hoed, whereas roads are where "ho"s work. (Pardon the really bad pun.)
"A whole nuther" - 389,000
"A whole other" - 2,000,000
Probably much more highly evidenced in speech rather than writing; it becomes quite obviously wrong when written. The large majority of sites I quickly checked out for the two wrong options were simply commentaries on people's incorrect use of the phrase.
Google reports 1.060 million hits for "shoe in" and 0.377 million hits for "shoo in". (note that the possible hyphen in shoo-in or shoe-in makes no difference to the google search)
This page and this provide a nice explanation of the etymology.
A friend and I swap these whenever we come across them, and our private name for them is "tribal issues", from a brief he once read which referred to "tribal issues of fact"; and no, the case wasn't about aboriginal land rights.
You're pretty much correct. Another example: I once knew someone who consistently wrote "want" when he meant "won't". Irritated me to no end since it not only changed the sense of what he was writing, but it forced the reader to stop repeatedly in order to back-up and figure out what the writer really intended. Equally irritating, it was no better when speaking with him, since his heavy Southern accent made his "won't" nearly indistinguishable from "want"!
Another mistake that annoys me is when people write "would of" or "could of" instead of "would have" or "could have". This seems to be more common among less educated people (sorry for the elitism), but not so much among educated people like law students.
Google reports 446 million hits for "would have" and 2.44 million hits for "would of". The ratio is similar with "should" and "could".
"would of" vs. "would've"
3,400,000 vs. 6,430,000
Fortunately, the first link is to a cite correcting this usage.
And FWIW, I agree with MacGuffin: these are not incorrectly spelled, their the wrong words. Like that.
Flaunt the law: 1.1 million
Whenever I read of someone flaunting the law, I picture that person ostentatiously waving a statute book. "Hey, check out my laws!"
Some hold, however, that "flaunt" is acceptable. I guess after enough people make a certain mistake, it's no longer considered one.
Seriously, I can't stand it. I frequently correct my significant other when she says "I could care less", but she never seems to learn...
de minimis = 2,300,000
23.9%
Of course, with all of these examples, you don't know how many google hits are for web pages in which someone says "people often write x, though the correct expression is y," which pushes the numbers closer to 50%.
SFB
"here here": 1,850,000
That's my pet peeve. And I excluded "here here here" from the latter search so as to exclude people writing "here, here, here, and here".
Aluminium - 57,200,000
Aluminum - 74,200,000
"Aluminium" is the standard spelling in British English.
In non-legal-jargon Latin, I checked "curriculum vita" for "curriculum vitae," which doesn't even come close to 25 percent, but the search did turn up a web site solemnly instructing its readers that the former is singular and the latter plural. No: "vitae" is genitive singular.
Butt Naked = 663,000
Is "Buck" becoming non-standard?
However, we do have
chomp at the bit / 949 / 670
expresso / 11,300,000 / 35,300,000
closed minded / 637,000 / 651,000
Soundalike pharses are sometimes called mondegreens, from the misconstruction of an English ballad: "Lady Mondegreen" instead of "Laid him on the green." The most famous contemporary mondgreen is derived from Jimi Hendrix: "Scuse me while I kiss this guy."
Chest of drawers
428,000/2,160,000
One I particularly hate [I couldn't figure out how one might Google this one, since I'm sure it's more verbal than written, though I've seen it in writing]: "dribble" for "drivel."
I guess I've heard the word "parsing" used, but I don't recall ever hearing it used quite that way. I've usually seen or heard it to mean picking phrases apart word-by-word and arguing about how each word or word part should be construed. E.g., is the word "respecting" in the Establishment Clause a gerund referring to the act of showing respect, or is it a preposition that simply means "about" or "concerning"? (According to every dictionary I've ever checked, it's the latter, but we have a huge body of law that seems to assume the former.)
On the Marshall Law search, I had to subtract out "John Marshall" to get rid of the law school.
"When y2k hits, Klintoon will declare Marshall Law and cancel the elections"
was the most common use a few years back; now it's
"BusHitler will declare Marshall Law and cancel the 2008 elections."
See also the infixive idiom (courtesy of my girlfriend): "Absofuckinglutely!" Probably shouldn't use that one in your legal briefs, either.
"never mind" = 2,750,000
google offers to change the correct version to the incorrect version
This is something I see in appellate briefs all of the time. As the Economist style guide puts it, "[i]f you flout this distinction, you will flaunt your ignorance."
"I'm not averse to": 44,700
A bright new manager at work used the "adverse" construction four or five times in a single conversation; the urge to correct her was almost overwhelming. She does, however, say "extravert" correctly, so there's hope.
"Butt naked", on the other hand, is a totally logical construction; with a few exceptions, people who aren't totally naked have their buttocks at least partially covered.
"could care less" = 1,920,000
"could not care less" = 219,000
"couldn't care less" = 2,000,000
E.g. "Indians and Pakistanis could care less about the whole thing," from "What's up with South Asia," David Post post at http://www.volokh.com/posts/1150553937.shtml.
Indeed "could care less" gets 89 hits on volokh.com, some of which discuss the phrase per se, but "could not care less" gets only 23, and "couldn't care less" gets 67.
I also occasionally see "deep-seated" as "deep-seeded."
But my biggest pet peeve of recent years is that in the midwest, over the last decade, the word "gone" is truly gone. Absolutely everyone--even local newspeople and officeholders--use the word "went" as a past participle, as in "I've went there before." It makes me crazy.
paint the lily: 17,200
Perhaps the Bard got it wrong?
TROLL FOR (107,000)
/trol, trol/
• verb 1 fish by trailing a baited line along behind a boat. 2 chiefly Brit. walk; stroll.
• noun 1 an act or instance of trolling. 2 a line or bait used in trolling.
— ORIGIN origin uncertain; probably related to Old French troller ‘wander in search of game’ and High German trollen ‘stroll’.
TRAWL FOR (23,400)
• verb 1 fish or catch with a trawl net or seine. 2 search thoroughly.
• noun 1 an act of trawling. 2 (also trawl net) a large wide-mouthed fishing net dragged by a boat along the bottom of the sea or a lake.
— ORIGIN probably from Dutch traghelen ‘to drag’.
Interesting, since my non-scientific observations led me to believe that the mis-use of "boarder" was extremely common, if not over 50%. (Typically by those persons who, as noted above, were breathlessly expecting Klintoon to declare Marshall law.)
"To enter the country a visa is required."
Visa (plural) - more than one visum
Which reminds me: The use of i.e. for e.g.
Here is a nice list of common errors.
Separate 353,000,000 - seperate 697,000
No. 2: Not as common, but I see it occassionally. And it's from Shakespeare, so it is vitally important to get it right, or civilization will crumble:
'To the Manor Born' for 'To the Manner Born'.
No. 3: 'Penultimate' for 'Really, really super important' (I worked for a dean who used to say this. Drove me batty.)
No. 4: BIG ONE for lawers-to-be: When they 'pour over' the evidence, they might want to 'pore over' it, too. And here's the depressing part:
Pour over (sic) 54.5 million
Pore over 1.9 million
SO I NOMINATE THIS ONE for the contest. (I think it's the penultimate example!)
I hope I have towed the line, since this thread bemused me.
And to PAUL Z., re: "Nevermind"--As I've said before, if Nirvana said it, it is canonical. (E.g., "When I was an alien/Cultures weren't opinions." No, indeed, they are not.)
I think this explains how these things come about.
I doubt the majority of the 54.5 M hits are mistakes. The phrase "pour over" isn't always incorrect. (e.g. "pour over ice" in a drink recipe)
That is absolutely incorrect, however, it points out the historical variant and a modern variant.
A tough row to hoe. (traditional - from manual labor in the garden)
A tough road to ho. ("ho" being the abbreviation for whore, and road being where the ho trys to attract clientele.)
"exercise in fertility" was inflicted upon my by my father.
1) Waling on/whaling on: 181,000/2,930,000, although a lot of the latter are referring to hunting whales.
2) Careering/careening: 259,000/736,000 (some of the latter are referring to cleaning boats)
Yep, that battle is lost. I just wanted to instigate some more levity since I expect the lawyers abundantly in attendance on the VC to have an exemplatory fundus of latinisms to contribute.
I can just see it. Life's. Could even have said either "there life's" or "they're life's"...
Probably "white bread" - bland and soft, like Wonder Bread. In my opinion it's not meant as breeding, but as a descriptor.
Also, let's be clear about "never[ ]mind": yes, two words are proper when you're saying "never mind, it's no big deal." But there's also the one-word noun, as in "it don't make no nevermind."
effected/affected is 36,700,000/241,000,000 though again, there are some correct uses of the former.
Straightlaced: 40,800
Straight-laced 333,000
vs.
Strait-laced 102,000
Straitlaced 89,400
The third is most correct, "strait" here meaning "tight" or "constricted."
By the way, seeing which version is more popular is more fun on www.googlefight.com
And I've also run across similar words with really different etymologies, but as a fisherman, trolling (pulling a baited hook and line behind a boat) is vastly different from trawling (dragging a net behind a boat). Like any other angler, trollers still must attract fish and get them to bite the hook. Trawlers just have to keep the net opened.
Marshal, actually (grin).
Wow. I'm usually pretty good at spelling, but I've been getting that one wrong for many years, apparently....
I coulda swore it was "Marshall Dillon;" now I learn it was "Marshal Dillon;" at least I'm sure it's not "Martial Dillon...." (is it?)
"hoard of treasure": 1,780
"hoard of barbarians": 1,760
"horde of barbarians": 3,260
"Could care less" used to bother me until I read this explanation somewhere, and now I'm fine with either one. If it's hard to hear the sarcasm in your head, imagine someone saying "I could give a shit," which effectively means the same thing.
"spit and image": 1,080
"spitting image": 613,000
though I suppose that means the first has become entirely obsolete now.
The error that drives me nuts in law student writing, though, which is somewhat difficult to search for, is saying "tortuous" when you mean "tortious". It's simply torturous.
rosensmith: "averse" v "adverse". If I'm averse to something I'll try to avoid it, but if I'm adverse to it I'll fight it. Also, at least the way I pronounce them, "averse" is stressed on the ultimate syllable, and "adverse" on the penultimate.
Ian Maitland: Yes, "troll" and "trawl" are false cognates - they sound almost identical, and they mean almost identical things, but they have no etymological connection. The same is true for "pen" and "pencil".
RainerK and John Burgess: Nope. There never was any such thing as a "visum". For as long as the word has existed in English it's been "visa".
Hoosier: "Penultimate" - yes, yes, yes. Also "epicenter" used to mean "the very center". It's the same error on both cases - people assume the prefix means "really really", when in fact it means "not quite".
As for "pouring over" a book, to me that means sweat is dripping from ones face onto the pages.
spider: I've only ever seen it as "white bread", meaning a bland and boring life. I've always assumed it referred to USAns' preference for Wonder-bread-like food products, rather than "real" breads such as rye.
Not a misspelling, but a distinction worth keeping (and we are not keeping it): "jealous" for "envious." ("For I, your God, am an ENVIOUS God" (?))
Re: "White bread/bred"--Billy Joel has it as "bread" in "Uptown Girl." Which I suspect would have been good enough for Dr. Johnson.
"bold-faced lie" vs. "bald-faced lie." Google results: 41,100 / 66,900.
This is a weird one I've never encountered in real life, but only on the internet: people use "dominate" as an adjective when they mean "dominant." (e.g., "He is the dominate pitcher in the American League.")
They don't make Eugene's cutoffs, but the following appear far too often for my liking:
"principal of the thing" - 13,500 vs. "principle of the thing" - 88,900
"principle reason" - 118,000 vs. "principal reason" - 1,160,000
"Capital Hill" - 643,000 vs. "Capitol Hill" - 4,640,000
I can't put it into any readily Googlable phrases due to false positives, but the use of "loose" instead of "lose" is increasingly common in writings I see.
Nick
On "Buck Naked," I believe that it refers to male african slaves who were captured naked or nearly naked. I don't mind at all if that phrase dies.
I know that the "your" "you're" distinction doesn't specifically meet the criteria but Paris Hilton has a shirt that reads "That's Hot" on the front and "Your Not" on the back.
"flesh out the details" - 33,300
"flush out the details" - 16,500
I haven't been able to read through all 5,324,819 comments posted before this one, so someone might have already mentioned it, but another written pothole a lot of folks fall into is "would of" instead of "would have" and other similar mistakes (could of, might of, etc.)
875,000/ 2,310,000/ 2,810,000
I disagree that it's the worst. Many, if not most who use "beg the question" do misuse it, but that amounts to a large percentage of a fairly small number who use it at all. On the other hand, some words are literally abused by everyone.
Datum - 336,000,000
Datas - 19,400,000
Data - 1,120,000,000 (Data as a singular noun has probably overtaken datum completely at this point...)
Forums - 548,000,000
Fora - 71,600,000 (the proper usage is simply crushed by the bad declension)
Memoranda - 10,900,000
Memorandums - 1,440,000 (the good declension holding its own, barely...)
And I'm going to agree with Siona that "could care less" is wrong -- I don't hear the sarcasm when it's used.
I thought she said I was "running on a post" - a non-existent idiosyncratic expression that actually made sense to me in the context: it indicated the fact that I was the sole candidate in the field. After that I used the phrase "running on a post" quite a few times in conversation, and no one ever picked up on the innacuracy because it sounds so close to the actual phrase. I only discovered the real expression about half a year ago.
Jerry-rigged has a different origin from "jury-rigged." During World War One shortages on the home front forced farmers to repair equipment with bits and pieces of scrap from around the farm. Jerry was a nickname for the Germans, so the annoyed farmers would say that their hay tedder was "Jerry-rigged." My family has used the term for at least four generations but my Dad never learned the origin from his parents and I never thought about the origin when I used the term. I didn't know I was ethnically slurring myself until I read "The Great War and Modern Memory" in graduate school. When I was next in Wisconsin, I asked my grandmother about it and she said it was okay for us to use "Jerry-rigged" because we are German.
"Pled guilty" = 1,400,000
"Pleaded guilty" = 2,020,000
I am specifically referring to "Plead guilty" with the short "e" sound (and rhyming with "pled guilty") though "Pleadeded" has a long "e" sound.
Of course, "Plead guilty" with a long "e" is different--and accurate as in "Vick agrees to plead guilty." A quick look at various links show that "Plead guilty" is probably used more that way than as a past tense though it is also used in the way I mentioned.
Well, quite honestly, that one grates my ears too. And I don't think most speakers of these phrases are intending to convey sarcasm; they simply don't analyze the words they use. Most folks don't think as lawyers and writers do, for better or worse...
And for the poster who commented about the misuse of want for won't; I have actually seen it written as wan't.
One can reign in darkness, hell or blood (according to Slayer), but one must rein in runaway spending.
We must rein in the pork barrel spenders who currently reign in Congress.
Here are some more examples. I mention the words because I recently got a campaign mailing from a Rhodes Scholar which talked about the need to "reign in" out-of-control state spending.
"toe the line": 360,000
The count for each may be inflated by the large number of sites devoted to explaining that, unless you're a tugboat or a mule on the Erie Canal, you toe -- not tow -- the line.
As to butt vs. buck naked, note the reversal in the relative number of results when you use the proper spelling, i.e., nekkid:
buck nekkid: 16,800
butt nekkid: 924
"Like I could care less." It also should not be used in this way after high school.
The difference is they describe it in terms of equipment and layout rather than of décor. (As, for that matter, do your more practical homosexuals.)
Pat: More etymology and usage questions should be answered with Slayer. Kudos.
I hate seeing "would as lief" written "would as leave." It has nothing to do with leaving.
Thank you Volokh for reassuring me that there are others out there just as pedantic as me! I think even most of my law classmates would not find this discussion interesting.
(Or is it "just as pedantic as I am" ? I never figured that out.)
Here's one not even close to the 25% minimum, but usage seems to be growing in recent years:
2,310,000 for "case in point"
76,200 for "case and point"
Also has an entry in eggcorn database.
13,300 / 3,080 / 371*
*reflects some "a behind-the-scenes affair" type results
I'm as pedantic as the next guy here but this shift seems natural to me. Yes, in the source language "forum" is singular and "fora" is plural. But this pluralization is not native to English and sounds strange. Once a word is adopted into English it seems natural to apply English grammar rules to it. Thus "forums" instead of "fora" (which Firefox tells me is spelled wrong!).
The Latinate forms persist for some words like datum/a and memorandum/a probably because the people who generally use those words tend to be more pedantic (e.g. academics, lawyers).
My contribution to the list will be:
No Holds Barred 286,000
No Holes Barred 164,000
Common Errors in English Usage
The author's site is the mother load of theings like this.
The standard expression is “buck naked,” and the contemporary “butt naked” is an error that will get you laughed at in some circles. However, it might be just as well if the new form were to triumph. Originally a “buck” was a dandy, a pretentious, overdressed show-off of a man. Condescendingly applied in the U.S. to Native Americans and black slaves, it quickly acquired negative connotations. To the historically aware speaker, “buck naked” conjures up stereotypical images of naked “savages” or—worse—slaves laboring naked on plantations. Consider using the alternative expression “stark naked.”
Other explainations are available.
i.e. a hard time buying sex.
Seems like a good way of describing an alteration of the correlation of forces where mass (weight class) is important.
Around the world.
Alan Ginsburg "America":
"I'm putting my queer shoulder to the wheel"
(from Scuttlebutt)
"Peter Isler, who held duel roles in the last Cup as both sailor and television commentator, chimes in with his perspective."
So that would be 'winch handles at dawn' or 'microphones at 11'?
I appreciate the shout out to my blog -- all the e-mails from well-meaning ignorami telling me that I got the name wrong have been worth it.
787,000 for "mother lode"
258,000 for "mother load"
1. Writing "arms length" instead of "arm's length" (noun) or "arm's-length" (adjective).
2. Neglecting to use the genitive case; writing "30 days notice" instead of the correct "30 days' notice".
3. And the most common problem I see (which is not limited to the lawyers at the firm) is Microsoft Word's "smart quotes" system failing to correctly interpret apostrophes at the beginning of a word. If you type, for example, "The spirit of '76" in Microsoft Word, the autocorrect feature will turn the straight apostrophe into an opening single quotation mark (the kind used to mark quotes within quotes, or the main quotation mark in British typography). An apostrophe only curves the other way (a closing single quotation mark). This becomes very noticeable when writing about patents where a long number is contracted to the last few digits (e.g., "the '409 patent").
"through the wringer" 151,000
"try and" about 61,000,000
versus
"try to" about 361,000,000
Technically, "try and" means something, but not what the speaker or writer means. The speaker means 'try to,' but says 'try and.' Which is fine when speaking, I guess, but writing?
Your right! But who's minds the sewer?
And I don't no whose on third.
"Just deserts" is correct. Google gets it right by offering to change "just desserts" to "just deserts." "Dessert" applies only to the sweet, final course of a meal. "Desert" can mean several things, including an arid sandy place or a thing one deserves. One gets the things one deserves when one gets one's "just deserts."
Googlefight indicates that the incorrect "just desserts" is used slightly more frequently than the correct "just deserts." 2.64M/2.2M
"That's not my /forte/." We get this forte from the French, it would appear. So it should sound like the first word in, say, Fort Worth. The *musical* term comes from the Italian, and means 'loud.' So we say 'FOR-tay.'
But try telling someone that something isn't your "fort." It sounds stupid to my ear.
I also insist that "hopefully" is not just for adverbs anymore. It can express a wish, and not just the way in which an action was performed. I don't want to say "It is to be hoped." No matter what Sister Noreen taught us.
The trouble with using "jerry-rigged" is that the reader can't tell whether the writer means "jerry built" (a bad thing, as it means "shoddy") or "jury rigged" (a good thing, usually, as it denotes improvisation, using whatever materials are at hand). "Jerry built" has nothing to do with Germans. It was common in the 18th century, long before German soldiers were referred to as "Jerries." Your explanation for your family's use of "jerry rigged" may be true, but even so, the term is confusing.
"If rent is in the rears...."
Strait and narrow/30,400
Sort of proves the next phrase in the KJV: and few there be that find it!
In a benighted earlier era, it was not uncommon to hear references to Indians as "bucks and squaws". As someone said above, it's not a bad thing to have those words disappear.
Of course, that doesn't stop "butt naked" from sounding stupid.
What is appalling to non-Americans or non-lawyers about "parsing" a statement? (BTW, are Americans allowed to be amused by stilted Englishisms, or is "English" English always to be treated as the reference standard?) Why should "construing" be preferred to "parsing," especially if the intent is to "deconstruct" a statement in order to come up with possible alternative meanings?
We will be visiting Maine in a couple of weeks and may drive up to Mount Desert Island. It is a wonderful place, hardly "an arid sandy place." So if we do go, I'd like to think we will be getting our "just deserts."
As if.
(I say this as a professional pedant. :-D)
I do not encourage the use of 'propagandum', because the English word 'propaganda' was never a neuter plural, rather a feminine singular ablative (with a long A at the end). The word comes from the name of one department of the Papal bureaucracy, the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide or Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith. Further explanation of why it's ablative and feminine and a gerundive would be intelligible to the non-Latinists here, so I'll leave it at that.
I'm going to try.
+
I'm going to fix the mower.
=
I'm going to try, and I'm going to fix the mower.
or
I'm going to try and fix the mower.
If anything, it has a bit more optimistic connotation than "I'm going to try to fix the mower" which carries no indication that you're going to actually fix the mower.
ALSO
I have never heard "could care less" used sarcastically. That's ridiculous. It's just wrong. For one thing - and I agree this is only circumstantial - but still true: "could care less" is almost never used to mean what is says, so it's hard to use it sarcastically. Some things are really a "big deal", which allows other things to be a sarcastic "big deal". You never hear a sentence like, "I suppose I could care less about my wife, so I won't ask for a divorce."
For a second thing, the comparison to "could give a shit" is totally off the mark. It doesn't matter which way you take "could give a shit" - it means the same thing. Either I could in fact give a shit, and a shit is exactly the extent of what I'm willing to give; or I could give a shit - but won't give even that! It doesn't have to be justified as sarcastic in order to make sense.
by enlarge - 113,000,000
by and large - 946,000,000
protege: 17,700,000
Okay, this does not meet the 25% threshold, but I find "mentee" so offensive that I disparage its usage at every opportunity. While I will reluctantly overlook the use of "Mentor" as a verb (that battle is lost), I refuse to acknowledge the existence of the verb "to ment" that "mentee" necessarily implies. Resumes containing this word require no further review. I recently returned a fundraising letter in its business reply envelope with the word circled and the written comment, "This is not a word." I reserve such vitriol and summary dismissal for this error alone. This is because it is what might be called a Homeric error. And I don't mean Homer Simpson. Please warn your students against this fatally discrediting usage.
What-EV-errrrrrr.
Hauled into court: 61,200
Haled into court: 34,300
Haul into court: 371
Hale into court: 53
Again, an example of the "incorrect" version outnumbering the correct version.
If you don't know whether you can do it, then it's wrong to say that you're going to try and you're going to fix it. All you're going to do is try.
Google returns 6,360,000 hits for "apropos" and 126,000 for "appropo" ... so it's more widespread than I would have guessed.
Whose on first.
Watts on second.
I don't no is on third.
For example, poster RJC above falsely claimed that google reports that "by enlarge" has 113,000,000 hits when in fact the phrase only has 34,900.
Similarly, poster JoeLaw misreported by a thousand percent the number of occurrences of the phrase "just deserts" (and misunderstood the phrase's meaning to boot). JoeLaw's incorrect numbers were quoted in a later post.
I guess you young whippersnappers never saw a wringer washer.
"foreword to the book" 62,500
or
"book's forward" 9,480
"book's foreword" 26,600
One seemingly credible source, the American Heritage Dictionary, reports,It doesn't expressly speak to the slave theory, but the theory it proposes (albeit tentatively) is different from that one. A different site expressly argues against the slave theory, at some length. So I guess at this point I remain pretty skeptical of the slave theory, at least until there's some authoritative-seeming evidence for that theory.
"Before that summer [1778] ended, Massachusetts and Connecticut had raised black companies (the Bay State's was call the Bucks of America and marched under a flag given it by John Hancock)."
The footnote for this section of text includes 9 different works, only one of which I have access to, so I can't find Ferling's source.
We can be confident, I think, that the "Bucks of America" did not get their name from the same source as the "Ox and Bucks" regiment in the English army. (Is there a Buckinghamshire in Massachusetts?)
Duck tape or duct tape?
I've never understood how one of the most commonly used items could also be one of the most commonly mispelled words.
I'm a tad confused as to the referral in your 8.21.2007 8:15 pm posting: "Fortunately, the first link is to a cite correcting this usage."
Are you directing us to a web "site"; or, are referencing a "cit[e]ation" on that particular site? My insight is not working too/to/two good/well today. ("good" is good Southern, besides you go to the "well" to get water and you had better not wail about it)
all the best
Tom
p.s. RainerK: I learned many, many years ago that "separate" was "a rat" of a word to spell.
Well... that's obviously false because people say it and understand it, and it's grammatical. So what's the problem?
I'm going to fix the mower. <== absolute
I'm going to fix the mower, but I may not succeed. <== possibility
I'm going to try, but I may not succeed. <== redundant
I'm going to try and fix the mower, but I may not succeed. <== redundant
I'm going to try and fix the mower. <== possibility