Since I see these common expressions and a whole lot more used and spelled incorrectly here on the forum I thought there might be some benefit to posting this article from BBC America. I see people from every English speaking country in the world get these wrong.
Ten Commonly-Misused Expressions From British English By Fraser McAlpine | Posted on Thursday, February 14th, 2013
Mustard, unpassed.
Language is a liquid constant. Its only job is to communicate and, really, so long as it does this reasonably efficaciously, none of us have any reason to complain about the rights and wrongs of other people’s communication. I mean, so long as I get what you mean when you say “pacifically how many people are coming to dinner?” or “I could care less about your new jumper,” does it really matter if you’ve used the wrong term, or got a little confused with your idioms? I mean REALLY?
OK, OK it matters! Stop shouting…
For you, then, here are 10 expressions that people commonly mess up, and the reasons why they are the way they are:
1: Pass mustard So, first of all, the expression you’re aiming at is pass muster – a state of being where you’ve been tested and come through with flying colors. There is also the expression cut the mustard, meaning the same thing. However, there is no pass mustard. And cut the mustard is thought to be derived from a mishearing of pass muster in the first place, so this whole thing is just a mess of badly applied condiments.
2: Tow the line Unless you’re a shire horse, pulling a barge down a canal, your opportunities to tow the line will be few and far between. However, if there’s a line that you cannot cross – real or figurative – it’s your feet that will need to be kept in check, just ask Johnny Cash. Therefore, the thing you need to do is toe the line.
3: Chomping at the bit A frustrated or excitable horse will sometimes mouth his (or her) bit, in frustration that they can’t just get on with, y’know, running around the field or kicking a stable-boy (or girl) in the ribs (or groin). This mouthing and biting action is called champing. So the expression for someone in a state of high excitement or frustration is champing at the bit. The horse isn’t chomping at the bit, because while chomping also means biting and chewing, the inference is that the act of chomping breaks the chomped item down into bits for the purpose of swallowing. And a horse that swallows his (or her) bit is not a healthy horse.
But, given that none of us is a horse, it’s close enough to be a forgiveable error, surely?
4: Nip it in the butt Please don’t nip things in the butt, you’ll only get a slap in the face for your trouble. If you’re nipping anything in the anywhere – ie you want to prevent situations from growing into bigger and worse situations – the correct thing to do is nip while those things are in the bud (ie, before they flower). It’s about gardening, not sexual harassment.
5: Just desserts The idea that some idiot is about to settle down, after a hearty meal and fork a mouthful of revenge pudding into his gob may be highly appealing, but that’s not the expression, it’s just deserts. In this case, deserts means “that which a person deserves,” with just deserts being a more righteous version. Granted, there is no other context in which anyone uses the word deserts to mean that, but that is what it means.
6: Ice tea It’s iced tea. See that rapper Ice-T? Well he’s not only got himself a curiously frou frou name for his street poetry persona, but he didn’t even get the reference right. So much for keeping it real.
7: Wait with baited breath Another expression that requires specialist understanding of the words involved, without which, any similar-sounding and familiar will (and have been) thrown in there instead. If you’re holding your breath waiting for someone, your ability to breathe has temporarily been abated, so to wait with ‘bated breath means to forgo breathing, not to dangle maggots from your tongue.
8: Deep-seeded Now, if a thing is buried deep, like a seed, that’s one thing. But that’s not what the expression you’re thinking of means. To have a deep-seated objection, or a deep-seated conviction of any kind, you’re describing something that is not only deep but firmly rooted. In nature, things that are firmly rooted tend not to be seeds any more, so even if the mis-heard version of the saying was correct, it’d be wrong.
9: Anchors away! Seamen! Seawomen! Do not throw your anchors away. You will need them. But if you want to raise them from the sea bed, so that you can start your journey, your anchor will become a-weigh, meaning its full weight is clear of the bottom. This confusion is one of those things that sounds like it makes more sense when it’s wrong, but doesn’t.
10: A tough road to hoe Any road would be tough to hoe, what with all that tarmac and concrete. But you don’t hoe roads, you hoe rows.
I don't think these expressions are commonly misused, as the article's title purports. Fully half of those of them are commonly misspelled, when people are defeated by homonyms - a problem certainly not specific to these expressions - but the meaning is plain and correct.
On second thought, I have heard 10 used before, at work, in the incorrect usage pointed out by the article ("road" vs "row").
The correct expression would be "I couldn't care less". When one says "I could care less", they're saying the opposite of what they mean; i.e. that they have some level of interest in whatever is being discussed.
Still, as linguistic sins go, it's no "irregardless", a non-word that makes me visibly cringe.
BrassScorpion wrote: 1: Pass mustard So, first of all, the expression you’re aiming at is pass muster – a state of being where you’ve been tested and come through with flying colors. There is also the expression cut the mustard, meaning the same thing. However, there is no pass mustard. And cut the mustard is thought to be derived from a mishearing of pass muster in the first place, so this whole thing is just a mess of badly applied condiments.
2: Tow the line Unless you’re a shire horse, pulling a barge down a canal, your opportunities to tow the line will be few and far between. However, if there’s a line that you cannot cross – real or figurative – it’s your feet that will need to be kept in check, just ask Johnny Cash. Therefore, the thing you need to do is toe the line.
3: Chomping at the bit A frustrated or excitable horse will sometimes mouth his (or her) bit, in frustration that they can’t just get on with, y’know, running around the field or kicking a stable-boy (or girl) in the ribs (or groin). This mouthing and biting action is called champing. So the expression for someone in a state of high excitement or frustration is champing at the bit. The horse isn’t chomping at the bit, because while chomping also means biting and chewing, the inference is that the act of chomping breaks the chomped item down into bits for the purpose of swallowing. And a horse that swallows his (or her) bit is not a healthy horse.
But, given that none of us is a horse, it’s close enough to be a forgiveable error, surely?
4: Nip it in the butt Please don’t nip things in the butt, you’ll only get a slap in the face for your trouble. If you’re nipping anything in the anywhere – ie you want to prevent situations from growing into bigger and worse situations – the correct thing to do is nip while those things are in the bud (ie, before they flower). It’s about gardening, not sexual harassment.
5: Just desserts The idea that some idiot is about to settle down, after a hearty meal and fork a mouthful of revenge pudding into his gob may be highly appealing, but that’s not the expression, it’s just deserts. In this case, deserts means “that which a person deserves,” with just deserts being a more righteous version. Granted, there is no other context in which anyone uses the word deserts to mean that, but that is what it means.
6: Ice tea It’s iced tea. See that rapper Ice-T? Well he’s not only got himself a curiously frou frou name for his street poetry persona, but he didn’t even get the reference right. So much for keeping it real.
7: Wait with baited breath Another expression that requires specialist understanding of the words involved, without which, any similar-sounding and familiar will (and have been) thrown in there instead. If you’re holding your breath waiting for someone, your ability to breathe has temporarily been abated, so to wait with ‘bated breath means to forgo breathing, not to dangle maggots from your tongue.
8: Deep-seeded Now, if a thing is buried deep, like a seed, that’s one thing. But that’s not what the expression you’re thinking of means. To have a deep-seated objection, or a deep-seated conviction of any kind, you’re describing something that is not only deep but firmly rooted. In nature, things that are firmly rooted tend not to be seeds any more, so even if the mis-heard version of the saying was correct, it’d be wrong.
9: Anchors away! Seamen! Seawomen! Do not throw your anchors away. You will need them. But if you want to raise them from the sea bed, so that you can start your journey, your anchor will become a-weigh, meaning its full weight is clear of the bottom. This confusion is one of those things that sounds like it makes more sense when it’s wrong, but doesn’t.
10: A tough road to hoe Any road would be tough to hoe, what with all that tarmac and concrete. But you don’t hoe roads, you hoe rows.
I've seen 1, 2, 3 (which nobody seems to ever get right), 5, 6, 7, and 8 all used incorrectly before far more times than I've seen them used correctly. The rest I've never actually seen used save "nip it in the bud", which I've never seen used incorrectly.
I think just desserts is better than the original. Because y'know their delicious come-uppance is like a cheesecake made of poopy.
I actually often say whole'nuther and might on occasion say 'literally' when i mean 'virtually', or 'almost literally'. Of course being british i say 'Littrelly', damn the syllables!
I'm going to write them - just adding "to" in their would make this entirely bearable, I have no idea why it annoys me but it does.
and my most hated one:
Bilateral discussion - if there are two entities having discussions it is a given that the discussions are two way, there is no need to add in a word to make yourself sound more intelligent. This one gets me having a unilateral talk with the tv , I haven't heard it spoken in person yet, but it's quite possible a headbutt could result
Oh man, my parents from Peoria, IL demand there is a "r" in Washington.
Oddly, my dad only does it around my grandparents. It's like lapsing into a primary tongue. It's bizarre. My mother claims the word is "warsh", but on the other hand, she also called it "pop" for the longest time, and we all eventually proved her wrong.
I get annoyed when software (Microsoft is particularly bad) give you options for 'English' and 'British English'.
I'm the one speaking English - 'American English' is the sub-dialect...
The other one that really gets to me me these days (and sadly just as common in the UK) is the mis-use of the word 'of'. People substitute 'must of' instead of writing 'must've' or 'must have' - it's betraying a fundamental lack of understanding the English language.
There's a lot of idiots out there that just use that to ignore that whatever rule they just claimed existed has one or more exceptions to it. They make a claim, you point out one or more instances of things not following that rule, and they reply with 'that's the exception that proves the rule'. They basically use it to deny the entire effect of contra-evidence.
The saying actually refers to a principle in which a specific granted exception allows a person to deduce that a general principle can be deduced. The classic example is that, seeing a statement that special leave is granted for troops to be out of barracks until 10pm, one could deduce that outside of that specific exception troops are required to be in barracks before then. But that principal is a lot less useful for idiots, and so it hardly ever gets used.
Since we seem to be digressing I will add any form on management speak.
I work with a usually sound Ops Director but get him in our senior management team meetings and we no longer talk or to people we "Engage". If they didn't get it the first time we need to "reengage".
notprop wrote: Since we seem to be digressing I will add any form on management speak.
I work with a usually sound Ops Director but get him in our senior management team meetings and we no longer talk or to people we "Engage". If they didn't get it the first time we need to "reengage".
Gah! Does me 'ead in it does.
For that kind of nonsense, "reaching out" chaps my ass instead of just "email someone".
The differences between 'their', 'there', and 'they're'. Their=ownership by a group of people: "that is their cat"
There=place: "put the plant over there"
They're=they are: "they're going swimming"
Native English speakers: you learn this by 4th grade, and I gave you a free, easy lesson. Utilize it. If English is not your native language, you're forgiven, as our language is truly an abortion among the languages of the world.
I have not seen these expressions written incorrectly because few people use them in text form.
Most of the butchery can be caused by my friend "auto-correct".
As some have posted, some similar word meanings can drive us crazy. My favorite is "affected" and "effected" I still have to look them up on occasion to be sure I am using them correctly.
For that kind of nonsense, "reaching out" chaps my ass instead of just "email someone".
Nah, that's an essential service being provided to you.
It is a single phrase that lets you know if you can disregard anything the person says further until they provide you with hard evidence to back anything they say up with.
Cue and Queue (also que) A Cue is a signal. Also a stick used for playing certain table/ball games. A Queue is a lineup of people. Also a ponytail.
You queue up in a line or join a queue. I suppose you could take your cue to join that queue of people who are holding cues whilst getting queues, though. Context is the key. If you don't understand which word is supposed to be where, then you've got no chance of getting that right.
The other one, is Spanish for "huh?", "What?", etc. Commonly used by people thinking it's how "Cue" is spelled.
I blame the English language for the issues, though. It's stolen words from just about every other language throughout the world - and shoehorned them into it - regardless of whether or not they fit.
chromedog wrote: Cue and Queue (also que)
A Cue is a signal. Also a stick used for playing certain table/ball games.
A Queue is a lineup of people. Also a ponytail.
You queue up in a line or join a queue. I suppose you could take your cue to join that queue of people who are holding cues whilst getting queues, though.
Context is the key. If you don't understand which word is supposed to be where, then you've got no chance of getting that right.
The other one, is Spanish for "huh?", "What?", etc. Commonly used by people thinking it's how "Cue" is spelled.
I blame the English language for the issues, though. It's stolen words from just about every other language throughout the world - and shoehorned them into it - regardless of whether or not they fit.
I agree with the first paragraph in the article. Short of a professional or academic capacity, if the other person gets what you mean then stop complaining.
I blame the English language for the issues, though. It's stolen words from just about every other language throughout the world - and shoehorned them into it - regardless of whether or not they fit.
That isn't something unique to the English language though. It's true of basically every language that doesn't exist in a completely isolated location.
I heard a 4th year college student use "pacifically" in an educational video in class earlier. I probably wouldn't have noticed it had I not seen this.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote: I heard a 4th year college student use "pacifically" in an educational video in class earlier. I probably wouldn't have noticed it had I not seen this.
Yes, people, on occasion, fail to pronounce words correctly.
"Supernanny" (off of the telly) uses Pacific instead of Specific. It always gets a giggle in my house.
I think "Write me" comes from "Call me". "Write to me" got mangled along the way.
Literally means "as written" (Being literal...), so cannot be used as virtually. It pretty much means the opposite thing.
One that gets me when I hear it in songs in "wrorld". Like "All around the wrorld".
I can't read the work "super" without reading it as "sooper". It should be "souper", with a "syoo" sound. Just like "new" and "tune" (Arrgg, that song), which should sound like "few".
I just wish people could go back to spelling the word, "definitely" correctly. The past few years I see a huge proliferation of the misspelling, "definatly" or "definately". I see it constantly here on Dakkadakka. Most of the errors come from people who use English as their first language (or who try to use it anyway).
The root word of "definitely", is "finite", which has many related words and forms such as "definite", "infinite", "infinitely", "infinity", etc.
There is no letter "a" in any of that. I can't even imagine where people came up with that one.
BrassScorpion wrote: I just wish people could go back to spelling the word, "definitely" correctly. The past few years I see a huge proliferation of the misspelling, "definatly" or "definately". I see it constantly here on Dakkadakka. Most of the errors come from people who use English as their first language (or who try to use it anyway).
The root word of "definitely", is "finite", which has many related words and forms such as "definite", "infinite", "infinitely", "infinity", etc.
There is no letter "a" in any of that. I can't even imagine where people came up with that one.
Seriously? You can't imagine how someone who says "definitely" couldn't mistake the 'nat' part of deff-in-nat-lee for an 'a' when writing it? It's wrong, yes, but it's clear where the mistake originates. I've also never heard of anyone saying deff-eye-nite-lee or deff-in-nite-ly.
It's up there with a few other words that suffer the same fate, for example "necessery" when they actually mean "necessary".
According to dictionary.com (I realize it's probably not the definitive source on etymology) the term "burglarize" is actually a bit older than "burgle." But either way, it seems they both originated around the same time.
Seriously? You can't imagine how someone who says "definitely" couldn't mistake the 'nat' part of deff-in-nat-lee for an 'a' when writing it? It's wrong, yes, but it's clear where the mistake originates. I've also never heard of anyone saying deff-eye-nite-lee or deff-in-nite-ly. It's up there with a few other words that suffer the same fate, for example "necessery" when they actually mean "necessary".
I'm well aware that the "shwa sound" (look it up) is confusing to some people and that is the likely source of the problem.
Yes, I suppose if you know absolutely nothing about the meaning of the word, "definitely", it's root, or never paid any attention to spelling in grade school whatsoever, then I can see how one might make that mistake. If English is your first language there's simply no excuse for this level of ignorance on something that should have been learned at a very early age. You don't exactly need to go to college to learn the basics of a word like, "definitely". And people making excuses for such illiteracy only makes it worse.
Now, I'm definitely done "conversating" on this issue. Another dumb mistake that's taken off recently, the word is "converse", as in the sentence, "We were conversing about the poor spelling of English language users." "Conversating" is definitely NOT a word.
I'm not sure if this relevant to the thread but if I hear another US law enforcement or government agent add the phrase "at this time" to the end of a sentence that could sit quite happily without it I will....tut or something.
"the assailant is still at large...at this time".
Just stop it, don't make me get on a plane and come and tut at you!
BrassScorpion wrote: If English is your first language there's simply no excuse for this level of ignorance on something that should have been learned at a very early age.
Sure there is. There's all sorts of stuff that people learn at an early age and forget later on.
When people are unsure of the correct spelling, they tend to just go with the way they hear the word rather than analysing its etymology.
notprop wrote: I'm not sure if this relevant to the thread but if I hear another US law enforcement or government agent add the phrase "at this time" to the end of a sentence that could sit quite happily without it I will....tut or something.
"the assailant is still at large...at this time".
Just stop it, don't make me get on a plane and come and tut at you!
Yeah, I also dislike it when they put 'right now' on the end of perfectly good sentences, as in "I am so angry right now". They seem to put a lot of extra words in sentences for no reason, which is how you end up with sentences like "I would like for you to understand that I'm gonna need you to go ahead and do that right now."
BrassScorpion wrote: Yes, I suppose if you know absolutely nothing about the meaning of the word, "definitely", it's root, or never paid any attention to spelling in grade school whatsoever, then I can see how one might make that mistake. If English is your first language there's simply no excuse for this level of ignorance on something that should have been learned at a very early age. You don't exactly need to go to college to learn the basics of a word like, "definitely".
Um, yeah, lots of people don't learn about the roots of words. It's one of those things that is nice to know, but completely flying rodent gak insane to insist people must know.
And yeah, lots of us got very good at spelling in grade school. Perfect marks and everything. But that was 10, 20, 30 years ago, or even more in some cases. Things slip from your mind. Other stuff becomes much more important.
And people making excuses for such illiteracy only makes it worse.
It isn't about making excuses, but about being a little bit sensible about what is, at the end of the day, a word spelled incorrectly.
I'm actually grateful about the little tip you gave (root word is finite, therefore spell it with two i), because it's a word that like many others, I used to be able spell easily, but which has somehow slipped from mind over the years.
BrassScorpion wrote: You don't exactly need to go to college to learn the basics of a word like, "definitely". And people making excuses for such illiteracy only makes it worse.
According to dictionary.com (I realize it's probably not the definitive source on etymology) the term "burglarize" is actually a bit older than "burgle." But either way, it seems they both originated around the same time.
Dictionaries only list the first written instance of a word, which might have been in use long before that.
english.oxforddictionaries.com/ lists it as a North American term.
Nothing against that, but when a perfectly good word gets stretched for no (known) reason....
Then again, a lot of original usages got kept outside the original area, like a silent "h" in herb. It's how Shakespeare would have known it, supposedly.
Then again, a lot of original usages got kept outside the original area, like a silent "h" in herb. It's how Shakespeare would have known it, supposedly.
I still laugh at people who pronounce herb without the "h", then again I am an englishman living in Canada so a lot of the vocabulary is quite different!
Then again, a lot of original usages got kept outside the original area, like a silent "h" in herb. It's how Shakespeare would have known it, supposedly.
I still laugh at people who pronounce herb without the "h", then again I am an englishman living in Canada so a lot of the vocabulary is quite different eh
Damn it, 'would of' has already been mentioned. I'll just add 'could of', 'should of' and MOST annoyingly 'I'd of" to the list. My theory is that people with no real understanding of contractions are trying to spell "would've', 'could've (which I think isn't even a real contraction), 'should've', and 'I'd have'. Defaulting to how we say things is just natural when writing; Phonetically there's not much difference between 'would of' and 'would've'.
Another one that bugs me in spoken English: 'Quote, unquote'
As in: "So I spoke to Donna, and she, like, said, quote, unquote 'Yeah, no, whatevvver!' What's with that?"
Technically correct usage, but stupid. The 'unquote' should be after the quoted piece of speech. Putting both the 'quote' and 'unquote' before the quote removes any point in actually defining it as a quote, since it doesn't actually define the quote...
insaniak wrote: Another one that bugs me in spoken English: 'Quote, unquote'
As in: "So I spoke to Donna, and she, like, said, quote, unquote 'Yeah, no, whatevvver!' What's with that?"
Technically correct usage, but stupid. The 'unquote' should be after the quoted piece of speech. Putting both the 'quote' and 'unquote' before the quote removes any point in actually defining it as a quote, since it doesn't actually define the quote...
Well, to be fair, people do say it the way you like, but instead of "unquote" at the end, they say "end quote". So, that's the way you're looking for it.
) a large amount of "just sayins" at the end of posts ] :(