Hooked on Homophonics -- NOT!
- Thread starter Weird Harold
- Start date
OldnotDead
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2002
- Posts
- 498
Where I grew up the public HS had what they called the 'no excuse' list. It was a list of words that if misspelled or used improperly would result in a reduction of one full letter grade on ANY paper in ANY subject. Maximum penalty was two grades down, but that was pretty scary. This was long before word processing and spell checkers. I remain paranoid about mistyping to this day, but still they slip through.
The biggest problem for me now is that our eyes see, most often, what they want to see. I'll find that a mistyped 'theri' got corrected by my WP to 'there' and it may be two or three readings before I notice it, if at all. It's where editors can be a lifesaver.
The other trick I have used to capture misspellings, but it doesn't always work on homonyms, is to read a story backward.
The biggest problem for me now is that our eyes see, most often, what they want to see. I'll find that a mistyped 'theri' got corrected by my WP to 'there' and it may be two or three readings before I notice it, if at all. It's where editors can be a lifesaver.
The other trick I have used to capture misspellings, but it doesn't always work on homonyms, is to read a story backward.
Last edited:
dr_mabeuse
seduce the mind
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2002
- Posts
- 11,528
From the "Merriam-Webster's On-line Dictionary":
"usage Dive, which was originally a weak verb, developed a past tense dove, probably by analogy with verbs like drive, drove. Dove exists in some British dialects and has become the standard past tense especially in speech in some parts of Canada. In the U.S. dived and dove are both widespread in speech as past tense and past participle, with dove less common than dived in the south Midland area, and dived less common than dove in the Northern and north Midland areas. In writing, the past tense dived is usual in British English and somewhat more common in American English. Dove seems relatively rare as a past participle in writing."
There's also dreamed and dreamt and the fact that the month is pronounced Feb-Rew-ary and not Feb-U-ary and that the 'H' in 'forehead' is supposed to be silent. God knows how many other linguistic landmines waiting for the unwary.
No one knows them all, and none of us is immune from making the occasional gaffe, and there are people who go around armed with their own special arsenal of pet peeves which they love to beef about. After a while it becomes a case of complaining about the mote in the other guy's eye without seeing the beam in your own.
I used to complain about the use of the word "hopefully", which of course means filled with hope and not "it is to be hoped", which is how it's invariably used these days. Then I heard the editor of the OED on a radio show talking about how words mean what people agree they mean. There is no Grand Council Of The English Language who sits in judgment and makes iron-clad rules. "Hopefully" is a much more useful word in its new meaning than it was when it meant "filled with hope", and I was just being a pedantic show-off and pain in the ass to insist people adhere to the old meaning when obviously the world had moved out from under me.
The homonym confusion Harold talks about at the top of this thread is inexcusable and shows an egregious ignorance of fundamental spelling, but much of the hair splitting on certain words is just pedantry.
Who wants to argue with Bob Dylan and tell him it should be "Lie, Lady, Lie"?
---dr.M.
"usage Dive, which was originally a weak verb, developed a past tense dove, probably by analogy with verbs like drive, drove. Dove exists in some British dialects and has become the standard past tense especially in speech in some parts of Canada. In the U.S. dived and dove are both widespread in speech as past tense and past participle, with dove less common than dived in the south Midland area, and dived less common than dove in the Northern and north Midland areas. In writing, the past tense dived is usual in British English and somewhat more common in American English. Dove seems relatively rare as a past participle in writing."
There's also dreamed and dreamt and the fact that the month is pronounced Feb-Rew-ary and not Feb-U-ary and that the 'H' in 'forehead' is supposed to be silent. God knows how many other linguistic landmines waiting for the unwary.
No one knows them all, and none of us is immune from making the occasional gaffe, and there are people who go around armed with their own special arsenal of pet peeves which they love to beef about. After a while it becomes a case of complaining about the mote in the other guy's eye without seeing the beam in your own.
I used to complain about the use of the word "hopefully", which of course means filled with hope and not "it is to be hoped", which is how it's invariably used these days. Then I heard the editor of the OED on a radio show talking about how words mean what people agree they mean. There is no Grand Council Of The English Language who sits in judgment and makes iron-clad rules. "Hopefully" is a much more useful word in its new meaning than it was when it meant "filled with hope", and I was just being a pedantic show-off and pain in the ass to insist people adhere to the old meaning when obviously the world had moved out from under me.
The homonym confusion Harold talks about at the top of this thread is inexcusable and shows an egregious ignorance of fundamental spelling, but much of the hair splitting on certain words is just pedantry.
Who wants to argue with Bob Dylan and tell him it should be "Lie, Lady, Lie"?
---dr.M.
Seattle Zack
Count each one
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2003
- Posts
- 1,128
Well said, dr.m. And a Dylan lyric too. I used to argue about "hopefully" with a zealousness that, looking back, only arose out of my desire to prove how smart I was. The usage of words like that evolve out of necessity; if there weren't a spot open, that word wouldn't have parked there.
James Kilpatrick's column "The Writer's Art" has an irregular feature, the Court of Irks, Peeves, and Crotchets, where Kilpatrick (the judge) makes rulings on things of this nature. Fun stuff. This week, the court is tackling the use of "went missing." You can read about it here.
deliciously_naughty
One Sexy Mama
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2002
- Posts
- 4,765
sigh....
I'm teaching the difference between there, their, and they're in tomorrow's "Writer's Workshop." My 3rd graders consider them interchangeable. Ah the joy of the confusing English Language.
I'm teaching the difference between there, their, and they're in tomorrow's "Writer's Workshop." My 3rd graders consider them interchangeable. Ah the joy of the confusing English Language.
Svenskaflicka
Fountain
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2002
- Posts
- 16,142
Lie to someone, lie down on the bed, lay the table. That I can manage. But then comes past tense, and then it gets confusing!
I always mix up lied and laid. My only way around it is to flip a coin, write whatever alternative I get, and then ask an author friend to read through it and point out any errors to me.
Ofcourse, the author friend in question has to be able to speak fluent English, or the whole trick is rather pointless...
I always mix up lied and laid. My only way around it is to flip a coin, write whatever alternative I get, and then ask an author friend to read through it and point out any errors to me.
Ofcourse, the author friend in question has to be able to speak fluent English, or the whole trick is rather pointless...
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Snooper said,
This is another Queen's vs. US American problem.
In the UK we say "I lay on the bed", in the US they say "I laid on the bed". This verb to lay is intransitive perfect tense.
In the UK we give the order "Lie on the bed!" in the US they give the order "Lay on the bed!" This verb to lay is intransitive imperative mood.
In both countries "I layed it on the bed" does indeed imply that I placed some object (not necessarily an egg) on the bed. This verb to lay is transitive perfect tense.
In both countries "She lied on the bed" means she was telling an untruth and has nothing to do with laying or lying eggs or down.
With all due respect, the above is not correct. There is no American British difference in correct usage, on these particular words.
In the US, it is incorrect to say, of a past act, "I laid on the bed." Likewise the order "Lay on the bed" is illiterate.
There may be a grain of truth if you're talking about American *errors*. Maybe we do say *in error* 'lay lady lay,' etc.
I have checked Oxford and the American College Dictionary, and see no differences. Can you cite one American authority that approves of your suggestions?
J.
I am likewise puzzled by the term 'intransitive perfect tense' but that's another story.
Added:
From Merriam Webster Unabridged Online:
A search for LIE, turns up no evidence of the American variations you suggest.
Under
LAY [many transitive uses; the following IN transitive ones are noted. See esp. item 2, where the term 'nonstandard' is applied, suggesting something less than correct.]
intransitive verb
1 : to produce and deposit eggs
2 nonstand : 1LIE
3 a : WAGER, BET b : to assert strongly : PREDICT, DECLARE
4 dialect : to await an opportunity : PLAN, PREPARE, SCHEME <laying for a chance to escape>
5 a : to apply oneself vigorously <laid to his oars> b nautical : GO, COME; especially : to place oneself in a specified position <lay aloft> <lay forward>
6 chiefly Midland, of the wind : to decrease in force : SUBSIDE
This is another Queen's vs. US American problem.
In the UK we say "I lay on the bed", in the US they say "I laid on the bed". This verb to lay is intransitive perfect tense.
In the UK we give the order "Lie on the bed!" in the US they give the order "Lay on the bed!" This verb to lay is intransitive imperative mood.
In both countries "I layed it on the bed" does indeed imply that I placed some object (not necessarily an egg) on the bed. This verb to lay is transitive perfect tense.
In both countries "She lied on the bed" means she was telling an untruth and has nothing to do with laying or lying eggs or down.
With all due respect, the above is not correct. There is no American British difference in correct usage, on these particular words.
In the US, it is incorrect to say, of a past act, "I laid on the bed." Likewise the order "Lay on the bed" is illiterate.
There may be a grain of truth if you're talking about American *errors*. Maybe we do say *in error* 'lay lady lay,' etc.
I have checked Oxford and the American College Dictionary, and see no differences. Can you cite one American authority that approves of your suggestions?
J.
I am likewise puzzled by the term 'intransitive perfect tense' but that's another story.
Added:
From Merriam Webster Unabridged Online:
A search for LIE, turns up no evidence of the American variations you suggest.
Under
LAY [many transitive uses; the following IN transitive ones are noted. See esp. item 2, where the term 'nonstandard' is applied, suggesting something less than correct.]
intransitive verb
1 : to produce and deposit eggs
2 nonstand : 1LIE
3 a : WAGER, BET b : to assert strongly : PREDICT, DECLARE
4 dialect : to await an opportunity : PLAN, PREPARE, SCHEME <laying for a chance to escape>
5 a : to apply oneself vigorously <laid to his oars> b nautical : GO, COME; especially : to place oneself in a specified position <lay aloft> <lay forward>
6 chiefly Midland, of the wind : to decrease in force : SUBSIDE
Last edited:
Weird Harold
Opinionated Old Fart
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2000
- Posts
- 23,768
Svenskaflicka said:
I've learned to avoid using (lay and lie in all of their forms) as much as possible because I can't keep them straight.
Having a character "recline on the bed" damages far fewer brain cells than having the same character "lay back on the bed."
About "Pique,"MS Word's Thesaurus function give the following information:
Synonyms for pique = irritate, affront, bother, chafe, displease, nettle, offend, sting, vex
meanings: irritate excite
(MS Word doesn't recognise "Picque" -- with or without the accent mark.)
Colleen Thomas
Ultrafemme
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2002
- Posts
- 21,545
Rimmer!
-Colly
-Colly
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Just seconding Harold about the 'word' (or spelling) PICQUET
//(MS Word doesn't recognise "Picque" -- with or without the accent mark.)//
It's not in Merriam Webster unabridged (i.e., English)
or in my Collins Robert 1000 page French-English dictionary. (French); nor is there any French word listed beginning PICQ....
J.
//(MS Word doesn't recognise "Picque" -- with or without the accent mark.)//
It's not in Merriam Webster unabridged (i.e., English)
or in my Collins Robert 1000 page French-English dictionary. (French); nor is there any French word listed beginning PICQ....
J.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
dr m
//much of the hair splitting on certain words is just pedantry.
Who wants to argue with Bob Dylan and tell him it should be "Lie, Lady, Lie"?//
Every American dictionary, the New York Times, every English grammar or usage book (e.g. Burchfield's _New Fowler's_: "The paradigm is merciless; no exceptions in Standard English"), and all of us crapulous pedants.
Why is "his cock lost it's hardness" egregious and "Lay on the bed" acceptable to all but distempered pedants?
Burchfield gives some examples of errors from slightly better sources than pop song, e.g., a sports column in the Observer.
"We are going to lay under the stars...." _Sun_ [British].
//much of the hair splitting on certain words is just pedantry.
Who wants to argue with Bob Dylan and tell him it should be "Lie, Lady, Lie"?//
Every American dictionary, the New York Times, every English grammar or usage book (e.g. Burchfield's _New Fowler's_: "The paradigm is merciless; no exceptions in Standard English"), and all of us crapulous pedants.
Why is "his cock lost it's hardness" egregious and "Lay on the bed" acceptable to all but distempered pedants?
Burchfield gives some examples of errors from slightly better sources than pop song, e.g., a sports column in the Observer.
"We are going to lay under the stars...." _Sun_ [British].
G
Guest
Guest
Dear Maths,MathGirl said:
Do you mean recombinant or recumbent? Big diff.
Curiouser, Perdita
dr_mabeuse
seduce the mind
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2002
- Posts
- 11,528
perdita said:
I think she means she's prostate.
---dr.M.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
dr m,
"she's prostate"
I don't think you should go around saying that she prostitates herself, it isn't nice.
-------
Seattle Zack,
That's an interesting column of Kirkpatrick; here's a piece of one:
http://www.uexpress.com/coveringthecourts/?uc_full_date=20031005
"Call it Writer's Interruptus"
by James Kirkpatrick
The foregoing hash of a sentence is deliberately inedible. We are talking today of Writer's Interruptus, a stylistic device that relies upon parenthetical phrases to derail a reader's train of thought.
On Sept. 3, columnist George Will was writing about Arnold Schwarzenegger and the California zoo. He said:
"Having intimated that he would finance his own campaign -- he would not be beholden to 'special interests' because 'I don't need to take money from anyone; I have plenty of money myself' -- he quickly solicited $3.1 million from contributors, for starters."
After a pause, my brother Will continued:
"But it is clear that Schwarzenegger, although from Austria, has an attribute that Matthew Arnold ascribed to -- the 19th century did not know that stereotypes are naughty -- Celtic people: a 'passionate, turbulent, indomitable reaction against the despotism of fact.'
[...]
"Somewhere in all this tangled shrubbery were nouns in desperate search of verbs. Parental clauses had mislaid their orphan predicates. Prepositions had lost their objects. Devoted readers -- and George Will has millions of devoted readers; they welcome his cogent conservative thinking, not only in his widely syndicated column but also in his television commentaries, in which his acerbic wit enables him to skewer his unprepared adversaries -- have learned to leap the dashes and stay the course. You bet.
I particularly like the second last sentence.
J.
"she's prostate"
I don't think you should go around saying that she prostitates herself, it isn't nice.
-------
Seattle Zack,
That's an interesting column of Kirkpatrick; here's a piece of one:
http://www.uexpress.com/coveringthecourts/?uc_full_date=20031005
"Call it Writer's Interruptus"
by James Kirkpatrick
The foregoing hash of a sentence is deliberately inedible. We are talking today of Writer's Interruptus, a stylistic device that relies upon parenthetical phrases to derail a reader's train of thought.
On Sept. 3, columnist George Will was writing about Arnold Schwarzenegger and the California zoo. He said:
"Having intimated that he would finance his own campaign -- he would not be beholden to 'special interests' because 'I don't need to take money from anyone; I have plenty of money myself' -- he quickly solicited $3.1 million from contributors, for starters."
After a pause, my brother Will continued:
"But it is clear that Schwarzenegger, although from Austria, has an attribute that Matthew Arnold ascribed to -- the 19th century did not know that stereotypes are naughty -- Celtic people: a 'passionate, turbulent, indomitable reaction against the despotism of fact.'
[...]
"Somewhere in all this tangled shrubbery were nouns in desperate search of verbs. Parental clauses had mislaid their orphan predicates. Prepositions had lost their objects. Devoted readers -- and George Will has millions of devoted readers; they welcome his cogent conservative thinking, not only in his widely syndicated column but also in his television commentaries, in which his acerbic wit enables him to skewer his unprepared adversaries -- have learned to leap the dashes and stay the course. You bet.
I particularly like the second last sentence.
J.
dr_mabeuse
seduce the mind
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2002
- Posts
- 11,528
That's okay. I know that you're always trying to take us further (farther?) toward (towards?) understanding language in a betterly way.
---dr.M.
---dr.M.
Weird Harold
Opinionated Old Fart
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2000
- Posts
- 23,768
Inadvertant humor?
In a story I recently read, a character pounded in a "tent steak" -- just what is a "Tent Steak" anyway?
Would that be a slab of meat big enough to sleep under, or just a small steak that's so tough you can drive it into the ground and tie a tent rope to it?
In a story I recently read, a character pounded in a "tent steak" -- just what is a "Tent Steak" anyway?
Would that be a slab of meat big enough to sleep under, or just a small steak that's so tough you can drive it into the ground and tie a tent rope to it?
