typos

A MEDIA MORTAL SIN

I’ve written about the all-too-common mistake of substituting a homonym for the intended word. (And if “homonym” isn’t triggering enough brain cells, it refers to those words that sound alike, but are spelled differently.)

Now, I don’t consider using the wrong version of a homonym a mortal sin – except when it’s done by someone in the media. Professionals should know better. During coverage of the recent flooding near my home, I saw several examples of writers and reporters referring to a barrier that holds back water as a “levy.” (At least they didn’t misidentify a dike as a “dyke.” We won’t even go there.)

Read more

ARMATURE NIGHT AND OTHER RANDOM THOUGHTS

Rather than go to town on a single topic this time, I thought I’d share a handful of items that either amused, bemused or confused me.

A local “gentlemen’s club” (one wonders how many of the patrons actually deserve the sobriquet) advertises upcoming events on one of those changeable type signs. On more than one occasion, they’ve invited viewers to participate in “Armature Night.” Nothing catches my fancy quite like a nude electric motor shaft.

Read more

HOMONYMPHOBIA

The English language may be complex, but it offers users an expansive vocabulary. The benefit of that isn’t the ability to impress people with five-syllable words; it’s the remarkable precision that all those words make possible.

But English also has convoluted rules of phonetics. And one place people – including professional writers – tend to get tripped up is in the area of homonyms. If your memories of third grade have become a bit hazy, homonyms are words that sound alike, but are spelled differently. More important, they have vastly different meanings – and your trusty spellchecker isn’t smart enough to recognize whether you’ve chosen the right one.

Read more

THE MUSTARD STAIN

Are typos a big deal? True typographical errors, misspellings, incorrect homonyms and the like all get lumped together under the rubric of “typos” these days. Many people seem to accept them the way we’ve come to accept a certain percentage of rodent parts in the processed food we buy. (You do realize that the government allows a certain amount of pest contamination in food, don’t you? There are actually acceptable levels of rodent “excreta” and insect parts in what you’ll have for lunch. Bon appétit!)

Those pesky typos have a more insidious side. While we might brush them off at a conscious level, they send a message to the subconscious that controls our beliefs and attitudes.

Read more

MORE FROM MISS SPELLING

Embarrassing spelling errors compounded by wayward spellcheckers continue to crop up, much to my delight (and that of several correspondents).

One recent example that provoked a chuckle was the Indianapolis-area newspaper that referred to those served by a County Home as the “poor and indignant.” I suppose poverty can bring out the worst in some people. (Of course, the writer meant to say “indigent”.)

Read more

JIST PLANE REDICULOUS

In a recent post, I poked a little fun at people whose complete trust of spellcheckers occasionally puts them in awkward positions, such as inadvertently apologizing for their lack of bladder control (sorry for the incontinence!).

Then there are those who don’t seem to notice that spellcheckers exist. Am I the only one who has noticed that the most common Internet spelling of “ridiculous” is “rediculous”? That “probably” has become “prolly” online? “Frustrated” has people “flusterated”? If you follow any online forums, you know exactly what I’m talking about.

 

Read more