Sunday, June 26, 2011

Loose & Lose

The words this week aren't homophones. But I felt compelled to include them because as I find writers absentmindedly interchanging them, it's become my second-biggest grammatical pet peeve*. These two words are completely different – they have different spellings, different pronunciations, and different meanings. They're simply not related. But what does that matter to the careless writer? They both pass spell-check, don't they?












* In case you're wondering, "must of" is #1.

3 comments:

  1. Truly? "Must of" beats out the others?

    Can't say I see much of "must of," so I don't really give it any thought. Guess I'm too busy trying not to get worked up over your/you're, here/hear, and there/their/they're.

    I must be getting better, though. I haven't been compelled to correct a lie/lay for several years now.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh, man, for me it's no contest. The ones you mentioned are annoying, of course. But they're the reason I started this blog – they CAN be tricky to learn and remember; I get that. So let's try a new way to help people distinguish between them. But "must of" instead of "must've"?? That's so f'ing lazy! I mean, it's not even close! If you're not new to the English language, "must of" just shouldn't occur to you. It's moronic. And for some reason I see it ALL the time now. Never used to. It's weird.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sometimes it's faulty hearing, though. I was 41 when I discovered that "just as soon" was not "just assume." I'd always thought was an idiomatic expression. "I'd just assume eat nails as listen to that music again." I took it to be an expression that one might assume a preference to do one thing over another.

    I can understand how must've might have been mis-heard down here in the Southwest. There'd be a small difference in pronouncification 'round these yonders, pard'ner.

    ReplyDelete