Hot answers tagged errors
That is called a transposition error, and is very common for reasonably speedy touch-typists. The text editor Emacs even has a basic control chord (Ctrl+T) to swap (transpose) the preceding two characters. From Wikipedia's transcription error page: Transposition errors are commonly mistaken for transcription errors, but they should not be confused. ...
"Subtract" is the word. Though the obsolete word "substract" did exist, any occurrence you see these days is most likely just a common mistake, formed by analogy either with "abstract" or with other languages whose corresponding words do have two ‘s’s. Many recent dictionaries do not list "substract". Of "substract", the Century Dictionary (1891) said: ...
I think you are referring to spoonerism : (from Wikipedia) is an error in speech or deliberate play on words in which corresponding consonants, vowels, or morphemes are switched between two words in a phrase. A similar error is metathesis: the re-arranging of sounds or syllables in a word, or of words in a sentence. Most commonly it ...
Where the authors of the book wrote randomically, they meant randomly and in fact intended to write randomly. This is demonstrably true. Randomically is not a word known to specialists and having a technical meaning (even an obscure one), because nobody is using it in published works – it is not found anywhere in the Google Books corpus (see: Google Ngram ...
As Edwin Ashworth has already mentioned, your example are homophones, not homonyms. A homonym looks the same and sounds the same. Stalk (follow) and stalk (stem of a plant) are homonyms. Read (a book) and reed (plant) are homophones. In the strictest sense, there is sometimes a distinction drawn between 'true' homonyms as above, and polysemes where the ...
Metathesis. This word is most often used of swapping sounds, but the OED defines it as "The transposition of sounds or letters in a word, or (occas.) of whole words or syllables; the result of such a transposition".
I believe you are encountering misuse of the word conscience by people who have an imperfect memory of a phrase such as “I can’t countenance” or “I can’t condone”. coun·te·nance /ˈkountn-əns/ Verb: Admit as acceptable or possible. (Google) con·done /kənˈdōn/ Verb: Accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to ...
As discussed above, this is clearly an error. However, it is an interesting error, which is driven by several different things: The word fob is very rare, and is essentially unused outside of this expression and the idiomatic verb to fob off. Therefore it's not surprising that some people mis-acquire the word, since they have so few chances to correct ...
These errors are called mondegreens, especially in the context of misheard lyrics.
The correct term is paregoric. It's of Greek origin and its meaning is the one given in your question. There is a definition at Etymonline.
Toff is BE slang for an upper class person. "He's invited the wife and I" is wrong but is mistakenly phrased to sound very correct and therefore upper class. It should be "my wife and me" but people wrongly feel that "me" is wrong.
A Purim Shpiel By Dan Silverman contains what is unequivocally a pun. Although able to build a profitable medical practice in Kingston’s Jewish quarter, Maimonides could not secure a congregation among the suspicious and inward-looking autochthonous Jewish settlement. He came to soft-peddle his rabbinical wares among the local infirm gentile population, ...
A homoglyph is a character identical or nearly identical in appearance to another, but which differs in the meaning it represents. Wikipedia has a detailed article on homoglyphs as well as one on IDN homograph attacks where phishers take advantage of this property to mislead their victims. As for your spell-corrector, you should be able to class such ...
Paregoric, handwritten, is easily misread as panegoric because r in some hands looks like n. You can see this, for example, in this online transcription of medical records,[DOC format] in which paregoric appears ten times and panegoric three times. This misspelling has been imitated. It has made its way into peoples’ minds, as evidenced by various ...
Respective designates the one-to-one relationship between the corresponding members of two different sets of things. Thus, in the examples given in the comments to your question "They chatted about their respective childhoods" — A chatted about her childhood and B chatted about his childhood. One set of chatters, one set of childhoods; for each ...
It's a malapropism and should read Provisionally, "subject to further confirmation, for the time being."
Your friend most likely meant that it occurred to them. Accrued is a mondegreen: a language mistake based on similar-sounding words.
It seems that the usage of "substract" is linguistically incorrect. However, I disagree about explaining this usage as a "showing-off". It seems that other languages do contain the letter "s" as in "soustraction" in French. People with a multi-lingual background are more likely to make mistakes, and it is nice if we just point that out to them without ...
They are not grammatical errors since the sentence structure is correct once you replace the erroneous word with the one the author obviously intended. So I would categorise those mistakes as spelling mistakes influenced by homophone confusion.
Toff's error is synonymous with the term hypercorrection. It refers to the erroneous use of a word form or pronunciation by a user who believes s/he is indeed using a correct form. And moreover, that this "correct" form is actually a correction of a common mistake.
Gimme a break. In this instance, "What do you got" is a false orthographicalization of colloquial "Whadayagot", which in turn is a perfectly normal elision of formal "What have you got". A step less elided would be "What've you got"; a step more elided would be "Whatchagot?" It only looks strange or improper because the writer/transcriber made it look so. ...
While I agree with the Unprestidigitator’s assessment that this is a typo, there is nevertheless a thing or two of interest to be learned here. First, the Google N-gram for “more that one/two/three/four”: Now compare that with the N-gram for the correct version: Two important observations are that In both cases, the lower the cardinal number, the ...
The sentence in question is a poorly transcribed (or misheard) subtitle. Given that the dialogue is spoken by Milla Jovovich while she is jamming food into her mouth, I can understand why that would be. What she actually says is, "I was just checking for delays on the subway." "Pre-delay" has no other use other than to describe the time before the onset of ...
Avoiding the implications of ludicrousness the term that applies is miswording. miswording n. and adj. misword v. wrong wording or expression; an instance of this (OED).
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The saying uses "broke" because it's deliberately going for a folksy, non-grammatical feel of homespun wisdom. The implication is that simple people (those least likely to adhere to strict grammar rules) have an innate common sense that the more refined among us do not share. Such people tend use "ain't" for "isn't" and ...
You need to learn about Noun Clauses. First, what you have in mind are Direct Questions: "Why did Tom let Katie win?" "How much $$ does she get?" Now, try this short exercise: Practice constructing Indirect Questions a bit: Do you know why Tom let Katie win? Could you tell me how much $$ she gets? In the examples above, you can ...
"Nonsense! curmudgeonism is a traditional pleasure for English gentlemen." - Walter curmudgeon: see Wiktionary
I recorded and uploaded this snippet of dialogue so anyone can listen and hear for themselves. I also did an analysis of the audio using Praat: (click to enlarge) There are two hyphotheses: (a) that the highlighted segment is the prefix pre- (b) that the highlighted segment is the word for. In fast speech, the /r/ part of both pre- and for will be very ...
When someone uses an incorrect word in place of a similar sounding word, it's called a malapropism. To use your example, if I were to say, I empathize with you, when I mean to say that I sympathize with you, that would be a malapropism.
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible