Here Comes Trouble

Surely you should claim to be literally dancing on that minefield!

Personally, the one that annoys me the most is when journos use evangelical (one approach to Christian theology - mine, as it happens) when they mean evangelistic (that which is intended to convert). It's particularly irritating when those described as evangelical are anything but.

A kind of counter-example, if it's useful, is the flammable/inflammable pairing.

I feel there should be many more, but they ain't coming. My mind must be too stationery today.

My main bugbear is the confusion of complimentary and complementary - I never know whether the thing I'm getting is a gift or part of the package!

@Anthony - speaking of matters theological, I am reminded of the clear difference between consubstantiation and transubstantiation, not that I police these sorts of matters...

Ordinance and ordnance is always one I pay attention to.

DC!! Spoiler warning required, surely??!!!

Ahh yes. I have a few bugbears:

Complimentary v complementary
Adsorb (from 'hold') v absorb (take in)
Discreet v discrete
Enquire (informal) v inquire (formal)

Dang - I will tackle willy-nilly. A reader of Wordplay sent along this email:

"I am horrified! Shocked, even! Sat's "Wordplay" stated: "...trouble with using 'genius' willy-nilly."
'Willy-nilly' doesn't mean haphazardly, but "whether you like it or not"

Originally, yes. But the Macquarie also lists as definition (2) - randomly. Was I wrong? Or are so many of these disputes based in that transition zone of meaning shift?

The OED backs you up too, DA.

Two pairs that I always have to think carefully about before I use them are flaunt/flout and flounder/founder.

It also irritates me when I read or hear 'comprised of'.

It's/Its
Advise/Advice
Licence/License

My own embarrassing admission is a verbal confusion between 'sceptic' and 'septic'. Given I work in a field where professional scepticism is a necessary attribute, it can be awkward...

People who say 'orientate' (which isn't a word)
when they mean 'orient' (which is)

Straying a bit, but you've got to love the irony of someone saying 'mispronounciation'.

Back on topic, and it's the olde worlde classice affect/effect mix-up that gets my goat.

Not sure what I'm meant to be spoiling, but ordnance in a minefield has definite potential to spoil your day.

I second discrete/discreet. Long ago I did a course on discrete maths and am now thoroughly confused.

How about “all intensive purposes” for "intents and purposes”?

DA: To me 'willy-nally' means random and nothing but random.

More grrrrs:
Breech v breach
Brooch v broach

Well, DC, I'll retract the imputation! But your psychic powers are definitely on today. You should go out and buy an Oz and do the Times Cryptic ;-)

And thanks DC, your ESP helped me to sort out a tricky corner in Times 9085.

I tried the Times for a while -- didn't work so well.

Since RobT mentioned breech v breach, I am going to complain (admittedly, as a non sequitur) about beech vs birch. Ikea sells bookcases in both colours, but they are so easily confused that I have ended up with non-matching furniture.

Surprised at how often 'site' or 'sight' instead of 'cite' gets past the Editor.
It 'momentarily' catches my attention ... so does the other use of 'momentarily' for something that's imminent, but it's eminently, or maybe arguably, or at least questionably, acceptable in US English .. in principle.

You just touched on another doozy, Criseyde - principle and principal.

Just been watching George Negus news show, and a dog catcher said 'Fines should implied on irresponsible owners.' Why not go the next step and infer a 6-month sentence? Probably wouldn't parse the senate.

I've just remembered another one that always bugs me - when people use 'regime' when they really mean 'regimen'. As in, "I've just started a new exercise regime."

There's a surprisingly large number of people who confuse lose and loose.

Computer v pewter.

Only kidding I do that all the time.

Usually I fall victim to sayings I have heard without having ever seen them written.

"It's the mother load!" instead of mother lode.

"Changing tact." I always assumed as being referring to either the word tact or an abbreviation of tactics, instead of changing tack.

Shamefully only a few years back, I'd held the strange notion that "concensus" was when you polled all residents of a nation, and that "census" was when Romans lined up soldiers and executed every 100th man. :S

I still have deep irk with "it's" from my scarring moment in Year 3 when I argued with my teacher and was made to look a fool in front of the whole class. The consistency of possessive apostrophe taking back seat to abbreviation of two words? What?!
"That is a cat. Look at the cat's tail."
"That is a cat. Look at it's tail."
I also find pronouns to be inconsistent to support my argument that the system is flawed, not my argument for "it's"...
Look at him. See HIS hat, it is HIS.
Look at HER. See HER hat, it is hers.

A long rambling rant? I digest...

i.e./e.g.

Or 'for e.g.' instead of simply 'e.g.'

Following on from Em:

ie or i.e instead of i.e.
and similarly for e.g.

(one of my clients insists on sending me his copy as i.e and e.g - thank goodness for find and replace)

Nib's "rant" about possessives and pronouns reminded of this drivel I wrote about 15 years ago - suitable for a late night chuckle, perhaps?

Consider the fox, whose plural is foxes,
But more than one ox is oxen, not oxes.

If one is a goose and a pair become geese,
Then surely a moose and its mate would be meese.

You might see one mouse, or a whole nest of mice,
But more than one spouse seems not to be spice.

We could throw a die, or a pair of dice,
We might tell a lie, but never two lice.

To follow that up, one louse, but two lice,
But the places they hide are houses, not hice.

One woman, one man, two women, two men,
You can cook in one pan, but not in two pen.

For lunch, just one loaf (but the baker bakes loaves),
Served, perhaps, by one oaf, not a couple of oaves.

A one-legged man has only one foot,
To hop himself ’round, he needs just one boot.

Most other men are blessed with two feet,
They get about best with boots and not beet.

You could lose a tooth from a mouth full of teeth,
You vote in a booth, is a row of them beeth?

You can point at one “that”, while several are those,
But more than one hat doesn’t make hose.

We talk of a brother and also of brethren,
Each babe has a mother, but a group isn’t methren.

Knife, life and wife become knives, lives and wives,
To pile strife upon strife doesn’t give strives.

Enough of these plurals, I’ve just one more quirk,
That proves that our English is really hard work:

If the masculine pronouns are he, his and him,
Why aren’t the feminine she, shis and shim?

Well, I did. Thanks!

PRS verse on irregular plurals reminds me of a linguistic faux pas of mine, witnessed by extended family and strangers in a pub in Germany. They were politely asking my brother, then a butcher, and who didn't speak German, how many head of sheep he killed a week? I translated this as that he killed 150 shepherds a week. The pub burst out laughing .. and I never forgot the plural of sheep again. They must have thought we were barbaric/barbarian Aussies.

That should be PRS' or is it PRS's verse? :)

And I shouldn't have put a ? at the end of an embedded question!

Tortuous (crooked, winding) vs torturous (painful). A long speech is often be both.

Sewage vs. Sewerage. The first being the gunky stuff, the second the piping that contains it.
And in my line of work, the term "OH&S" (Occupational Health and Safety) - Occupational pertaining to employed work, not where you live, or what you occupy.

till instead of 'til, the abbreviation of until. as in "Wait till your father gets home!" Till seems to be accepted now as it's in constant use in subtitled movies.

"All goes well" for "augers well".

"fine toothcomb" instead of "fine-toothed comb"

and re "He is one of the great, if not greatest, players to play the game"
I'm still confused till (!!) this day about whether that means
1. if he's not great then the only option is to upgrade him to greatest, or
2. if he's not greatest, he can at least be proclaimed great

Mauve is being agri-cultural.

Tilling, augu[e]ring and combing.

What a list! Is anyone else feeling 'mischievious'?

Twitter is rampant with "should of" instead of "should have".

PRS, that poem was hilarious!

DA's column a few months back mentioned a spelling bee musical I was in. I added some trivia to the booklet:
The sentence “Mclaughlin’s daughter’s laughter whilst thoughtlessly scoffing doughnuts on a bough, upside-down by her houghs above the lough slough, was thorough enough to make her cough, hiccough and fall roughly off.” contains 3 different pronunciations of ‘augh’ and 10 different pronunciations of ‘ough’.

Nib, reminds me of an English teacher's joke:
Q How do you spell 'fish'? A: GHOTI
e.g. couGH wOmen naTIon

Another pair of faux amis I heard today spoken by a journalist: unkept for unkempt

A colleague of mine says 'nilly-willy' by mistake, which I find somewhat amusing. But am much too polite to point out.

He's a bit of a billy-silly

These two articles cover a fair few common gaffes:

http://www.cracked.com/blog/9-words-youre-confusing-with-other-words/

http://www.cracked.com/blog/8-words-internet-loves-to-confuse-with-other-words_p2/