Note from a cranky editor

[Mike Farley]

I once knew a guy that wrote circle 1890 when he meant circa 1890.

 

[Trekker4747]

It's also statute of limitations, not statue.

 

[Lindley]

One I see way to often in the Trek forums....even saw someone with it in their username once: Captian.

 

[ALF]

All these are fine, but the highest frequency mistake I see is your = you are, which makes me bonkers.

"Your in trouble."
"Where are you're pants?"

It just drives me up the f@cking wall. The Trek BBS is not too bad for it, but on Facebook it's very painful.

You're = YOU ARE.
Your = POSSESSIVE

 

[Christopher]

Now, who wants to argue about split infinitives?

No such thing. In English, an infinitive is a single word; the "to" is a helper word that accompanies it. And in point of fact, there's no style manual that actually forbids inserting a word between "to" and the infinitive when it serves clarity and aesthetics to do so. So the whole idea of a split infinitive is really just a grammar-school urban legend.

One that alwats gets me: when "ordinance" is used when it should be "ordnance".

Reminds me of "lightening" for "lightning."

One I see way to often in the Trek forums....even saw someone with it in their username once: Captian.

I also often see "villian" for "villain."

One thing that surprises me is how often I see "asteriod" for "asteroid."

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

I think the funniest one I've seen is, "This story should be taken with a grain assault."

 

[captcalhoun]

i've noticed several Trek books lately with unsplit infinitives to verb X not to X verb (particularly in Wardilmore's VGD books) and it bugs the ever-living snot out of me because it ruins the flow of the sentence.

 

[Timby]

One that always gets me: when "ordinance" is used when it should be "ordnance".

I see that fairly often, although both are correct in different situations.

 

[Christopher]

I think the funniest one I've seen is, "This story should be taken with a grain assault."

For all intensive purposes. (Which, of course, should be "for all intents and purposes.")

One that always gets me: when "ordinance" is used when it should be "ordnance".

I see that fairly often, although both are correct in different situations.

Yeah, that's not a misspelling so much as the wrong word choice, like "loathe" (to hate) for "loath" (reluctant) or "lightening" (making lighter) for "lightning" (big electric discharges from thunderstorms). An ordinance is an order, statute, or regulation; ordnance is weapons and ammunition. They both come from the same root, though, for some reason.

 

[JustKate]

I think the funniest one I've seen is, "This story should be taken with a grain assault."

For all intensive purposes. (Which, of course, should be "for all intents and purposes.")

Ooh, this makes me think of another one: "It spread like wildflowers!"

Which is kind of a nice image, really, but in context, it was clearly not the one the speaker intended to convey. And she said it more than once, too.

 

[Timby]

An ordinance is an order, statute, or regulation; ordnance is weapons and ammunition. They both come from the same root, though, for some reason.

I'm reasonably certain that "ordnance" stems from a Middle English word meaning, roughly, "military provisions" or something of the sort.

"Ordinance" comes from the Latin verb "ordinare," more specifically its present participle "ordinans," meaning "to decree or put in order."

 

[Christopher]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ordnance

[Middle English ordnaunce, variant of ordinaunce, order, military provision; see ordinance.]
...
"cannon, artillery," a clipped form of ordinance (q.v.) which was attested from 1390 in the sense of "military materials, provisions of war;" a sense now obsolete but which led to those of "engines for discharging missiles" (c.1430) and "branch of the military concerned with stores and materials" (1485). The shorter word was established in these distinct senses by 17c.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ordinance

By c.1330 senses had emerged of "arrangement in ranks or rows" (especially in order of battle), also "warlike provisions, equipment" (a sense now in ordnance, q.v.).

I would imagine that a military force would want its weapons and equipment lined up in neat, orderly rows for easy access and use, so that could be the connection. Or... they had cannons in Europe by 1330, and I think cannons would generally be arranged in a straight line. Though that might be pushing it, since they wouldn't have been in use very long by that point, and if 1330 is the earliest known written citation, the term was probably already around for some time before then.

 

[wew]

Well the American Psychological Association's Publication Manual has a massive number of errors in the recent edition.

http://www.insidehighereducation.com/news/2009/10/13/apa

You should read the comments about this error filled manual.

 

[Greg Cox]

Where you see a lot of this stuff, alas, is in the closed-captioning that accompanies movies and tv shows. Too often you can tell that the poor stenographer did not recognize an unusual word or phrase and typed what they thought they heard. Like "grain assault" or "intensive purposes" or whatever.

Meanwhile, I once edited a mystery novel is which the author consistently mixed up "message" and "massage." As is: "The vice squad raided the sleazy message parlor."

 

[S. Gomez]

Meanwhile, I once edited a mystery novel is which the author consistently mixed up "message" and "massage." As is: "The vice squad raided the sleazy message parlor."

Sounds like a joke from a Pink Panther movie.

 

[S. Gomez]

And on the subject of spelling/punctuation/mishearing disasters, it's possible to make them just a teensy bit more annoying than they are on the page...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/dining/14cake.html?hp

What tickled me in that article is that the section of the New York Times in question can easily be changed to "Dining & Whining".

 

[Turtletrekker]

Where you see a lot of this stuff, alas, is in the closed-captioning that accompanies movies and tv shows. Too often you can tell that the poor stenographer did not recognize an unusual word or phrase and typed what they thought they heard. Like "grain assault" or "intensive purposes" or whatever.

In the Firefly DVD's there is one episode where Jayne says "Gorramit Mal!" but the captions read "You're a rabbit Mal!"

 

[Broccoli]

It has always been like that. Anything that is possessive, regardless if it ends in "-s" gets an "-'s".

Unless it's a plural. Like I said, and like S Gomez's examples show -- a singular word ending in s gets an 's added (James's house, the Prius's steering wheel), but a plural ending in s gets only the apostrophe (the boys' treehouse, the ladies' auxiliary).

Yes, that is what I was referring to, singular words.

Upon a rereading of my post, I realize that I wasn't clear on that specific distinction.

Something else to consider is when words end in "s", such as Mr. Jones. In that case you would add a "-'s" and it would like "Mr. Jones's book". When you have a word that ends in "-s", but is plural, you have to make sure you add that "-es" to the word. For example, "The Joneses' house".

Well the American Psychological Association's Publication Manual has a massive number of errors in the recent edition.

http://www.insidehighereducation.com/news/2009/10/13/apa

You should read the comments about this error filled manual.

I am of the belief that the APA (and other similar organizations) make changes for no other reason than to simply to sell more books.

 

[kitsune]

I had a coworker who always wrote per say instead of per se.
moral vs. morale.
acrost vs. across (mispronunciation, not a grammar error).

 

[Mistral]

I'm thinking you folks need to read Eats, Shoots and Leaves until the indignation subsides.