Grammar and spellling that make you twitch

[Pen^2]

Except any good chemist would know it's DE-ionized, not un-ionized, which unfortunately ruins the joke 

Dang nab it - but now I'm glad I DIDN'T send it to Mom!

I would use un-ionized occasionally when referring to particular valances of elements.  I would use de-ionized when referring to water treated to remove ionized chemical components.  In aqueous solution, most things are ionized.

(Biochemist here)

Exactly. Both are correct, technical terms, but have different meanings and uses. Although I guess to a layman they seem pretty much the same. On a rather similar note...

People mixing up "uninterested" and "disinterested." Despite having similar prefixes, the words do not mean the same thing and are not interchangeable. I've seen this twice today for some reason.

[Lorelei_Evil]

My X was intelligent and well educated, but he did manage to mangle some words (his parents were the king and queen of mangling the language!)
Some examples: birfday for birthday, wood-ent for wouldn't.

And some of the comments reminded me of how many people say and spell sherbet "sherbert." 

"Sherbert" makes me climb walls.  See also pronouncing tastes as taste-uzz.  *flinch*

I'm always tempted to correct grocery store signage here as it's almost always incorrect.

[baglady]

I used to work at a convenience store that also sold ice cream by the dip. When sherbet coolers were the special, the signs from corporate we used always spelled it "sherbet," but everyone, employees and customers, pronounced it "sherbert." I was prepared to offer to buy a cooler for any customer who actually said "sherbet."

I'm in upstate New York and know some lifelong residents who use "borrow" for "lend." It's almost numbed me to the use of "loan" for "lend." The former is a noun; the latter is a verb. "I need a loan. Can you lend me $100?"

[Ms_Cellany]

I found this article interesting and sobering.

http://paintingthegreyarea.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/literacy-privilege/

[lowspark]

I used to work at a convenience store that also sold ice cream by the dip. When sherbet coolers were the special, the signs from corporate we used always spelled it "sherbet," but everyone, employees and customers, pronounced it "sherbert." I was prepared to offer to buy a cooler for any customer who actually said "sherbet."

I'm in upstate New York and know some lifelong residents who use "borrow" for "lend." It's almost numbed me to the use of "loan" for "lend." The former is a noun; the latter is a verb. "I need a loan. Can you lend me $100?"

Loan and lend used to bother me too. (It still does to some extent.)
However, it turns out that loan can be used as a verb. I don't know if it's always been that way or not but language does evolve and incorrect usage, if it becomes common enough, can become correct.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/loan?s=t&path=/

[Twik]

I found this article interesting and sobering.

http://paintingthegreyarea.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/literacy-privilege/

I'm afraid I disagree with some of the writer's conclusions.

Yes, people have differing reading/writing abilities, and will not always conform to the "right" way of doing things. However, throwing up your hands and announcing "anything goes" doesn't really help the people who need it the most. If you have trouble reading standard English, trying to follow a poorly written, badly spelled and incoherent paragraph is going to be even harder. The best readers (particularly those with a good grasp of phonics) can follow "ewneek" spellings with relative ease; those who don't recognize the phonetic units of words are not likely to recognize alternate spellings so easily. Punctuation and even capitalization of certain words are not signs of snobbishness, they're the equivalent of having a standardized road sign system for readers.

Of course, it's rude, and pointless, to hold someone's internet postings to the standards of a proof-read professional document. However, those who choose to write need to write clearly above all else, and the rules of grammar and spelling are part of this. I would, of course, rather read a page of poorly-spelled text with split infinitives and improper punctuation rather than a properly-spelled one consisting of rambling sentences that never quite seem to coalesce into actual communication.

I have come across posters on this and other sites who didn't spell so well, and whose grammar was not perfect, but were able to put together a sentence that meant something. This is the most important thing.

[cabbageweevil]

I found this article interesting and sobering.

http://paintingthegreyarea.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/literacy-privilege/

I'm afraid I disagree with some of the writer's conclusions.

Yes, people have differing reading/writing abilities, and will not always conform to the "right" way of doing things. However, throwing up your hands and announcing "anything goes" doesn't really help the people who need it the most. If you have trouble reading standard English, trying to follow a poorly written, badly spelled and incoherent paragraph is going to be even harder. The best readers (particularly those with a good grasp of phonics) can follow "ewneek" spellings with relative ease; those who don't recognize the phonetic units of words are not likely to recognize alternate spellings so easily. Punctuation and even capitalization of certain words are not signs of snobbishness, they're the equivalent of having a standardized road sign system for readers.

Of course, it's rude, and pointless, to hold someone's internet postings to the standards of a proof-read professional document. However, those who choose to write need to write clearly above all else, and the rules of grammar and spelling are part of this. I would, of course, rather read a page of poorly-spelled text with split infinitives and improper punctuation rather than a properly-spelled one consisting of rambling sentences that never quite seem to coalesce into actual communication.

I have come across posters on this and other sites who didn't spell so well, and whose grammar was not perfect, but were able to put together a sentence that meant something. This is the most important thing.

MsCellany: I see where you, and the linked article’s author, are coming from. Am "telling my beads rather differently", I feel, from you and the author; and from Twik.  In this thread (mostly, it seems to me, about individual small use-of-English annoyances and pet peeves), I’ve inclined toward the “tolerance” end of the spectrum; in part, because language-wise, faulty grammar and spelling tend not to bother me – I’m more disposed to be annoyed by vocabulary (words used, which just happen to grate on me) and pronunciation (re the latter, am usually more irked by “precious and superior” in that realm, than “ignorant and low-class”).

Still; I have the feeling that – especially with this being the “relaxed and for fun” section of the forum – folk are often basically engaging in a light-hearted form of “venting”: with it being understood that they realise that less-than-optimal use of English does not make the misusers, bad or despicable people – and that in the great scheme of things, this is (largely) petty and unimportant stuff. It’s just that certain usages acutely grate on the hearer / reader (we all have our pet hates in this department); and it can be a relief to have a place in which one can express and let out one’s minor bigotries, where one is unlikely to hurt or offend anyone in the course of doing so.

[Twik]

One should, if necessary to attack at all, attack the argument, not the form; but the argument has to be comprehensible. An understandable posting in Lolspeak may be cute, or tedious, but if it's understandable, I don't really care. Someone who writes "u no I iz not gon 2 rite lik dat," so that I have to spend five minutes sounding it out and playing rebus games, is not going to make for easy conversation.

And if you are trying to win an argument on your technical expertise, you lose 101% right off the top if you cannot spell technical terms relevant to that supposed expertise. If you say, "I should know, because I am a kernel in the armed forces," I will find myself doubting you.

[*new*mommyagain36]

A very sweet person I work with calls it "alphabeticalized"   
She is such a doll that I just keep going but inward I do flinch a little.  Just a little.   

[cabbageweevil]

I used to work at a convenience store that also sold ice cream by the dip. When sherbet coolers were the special, the signs from corporate we used always spelled it "sherbet," but everyone, employees and customers, pronounced it "sherbert." I was prepared to offer to buy a cooler for any customer who actually said "sherbet."

"Bumping" this thread after a few days, after reading a discussion elsewhere, which shed new light for me on the "sherbet / sherbert" question.  I had been wondering why so many people here on eHell seemed to get a bit bent out of shape about the "sherbert" version -- it had struck me just as a question of correct or incorrect spelling (about which, for sure, nearly all of us have at least a couple of pet hates or hot buttons). I'd hitherto been thinking "obviously, people conflate the spelling of the eaten / drunk substance, with the name (both 'given', and surname) Herbert -- surely, no very big deal?"  Today, at last, I think I get it (your post above, baglady, should have given me a clue).

I see as taking a hand here, the well-known US / British "rhotic / non-rhotic" thing.  It would seem that mostly in the US, people always pronounce the r's in words; whereas the UK pronunciation tends to slide over / suppress the r's. Here in the UK, in the main we'll say "sher-buht" and "Her-buht" -- sounding the same, except for the initial consonant.  In the US, you vocalise the "r" -- hence potential annoying pronunciation, as well as spelling, difference. Understanding gained, I hope...

[Twik]

I see as taking a hand here, the well-known US / British "rhotic / non-rhotic" thing.  It would seem that mostly in the US, people always pronounce the r's in words; whereas the UK pronunciation tends to slide over / suppress the r's. Here in the UK, in the main we'll say "sher-buht" and "Her-buht" -- sounding the same, except for the initial consonant.  In the US, you vocalise the "r" -- hence potential annoying pronunciation, as well as spelling, difference. Understanding gained, I hope...

Ooh, this explanation makes my linguistic heart happy.

[cabbageweevil]

I see as taking a hand here, the well-known US / British "rhotic / non-rhotic" thing.  It would seem that mostly in the US, people always pronounce the r's in words; whereas the UK pronunciation tends to slide over / suppress the r's. Here in the UK, in the main we'll say "sher-buht" and "Her-buht" -- sounding the same, except for the initial consonant.  In the US, you vocalise the "r" -- hence potential annoying pronunciation, as well as spelling, difference. Understanding gained, I hope...

Ooh, this explanation makes my linguistic heart happy.

There was in our family, when I was a kid, a silly "rhyming alphabet", of which I now only remember fragments -- do wish that I still had it in full.  It involved a five-line verse for each letter -- on the "limerick" principle, though not with that metre -- mostly, maybe throughout, featuring animal characters.

"T" therein, was as follows.

"T was a turbot
 Addicted to sherbet;
 (I forget lines 3 and 4, but they definitely told of unpleasant consequences of said addiction)
 Terrible turbot !"

In the UK, that rhymes and "works" just fine -- on the other side of the Atlantic, it would seem, not so much !

ETA -- On reflection -- I'm an idiot !  So long as "sherbert" is avoided, it's totally "cool" both sides of the pond -- isn't it?  For me -- to quote the British satirical magazine -- "That's enough sherbe[r]t -- Ed."

[Slartibartfast]

I'll admit I spell it "sherbet" and say "sherbert" - just one of those words whose pronunciation bears little resemblance to the spelling, like worcestershire sauce.  (I say "wuss-ter-shir" and DH says "wore-chester," for the record . . .)

[cabbageweevil]

I'll admit I spell it "sherbet" and say "sherbert" - just one of those words whose pronunciation bears little resemblance to the spelling, like worcestershire sauce.  (I say "wuss-ter-shir" and DH says "wore-chester," for the record . . .)

English place-names, pronunciation versus spelling -- I'd give anyone who is not English, a total pass re all of that: inconsistent lunacy, rules. Slarti, in fact you've got the pronunciation of "Worcestershire" right, as near as makes no difference.  And with place-names in our Celtic neighbour countries, the nightmare becomes worse: their, different, ancestral languages get in on the act too...

[Free Range Hippy Chick]

As far as I'm concerned, the county of Worcestershire is Wooste'shur, but the sauce is Wooster. #shrugs#

I hate, loathe and despise 'crispy'. What's wrong with 'crisp'? I mean we don't say a building is biggy, or a sound is loudy.