The mispronunciation of especially really bothers me. I have been hearing people say frutation istead of fruition.
Add to that the people who pronounce “et cetera” as though there’s an “x” in it (or as though it’s ecetera or something, which could explain why they abbreviate it “ect.”
The mispronunciation of especially really bothers me. I have been hearing people say frutation istead of fruition.
Add to that the people who pronounce “et cetera” as though there’s an “x” in it (or as though it’s ecetera or something, which could explain why they abbreviate it “ect.”
Add to that the people who pronounce “et cetera” as though there’s an “x” in it (or as though it’s ecetera or something, which could explain why they abbreviate it “ect.”
Chomping isn't incorrect, champ is defined as another term for chomp. MW dictionary even uses either interchangeably in the phase.
What grinds my gears is when people say walla to mean voila. They aren't muslim and they aren't being ironic. Saying walla really needs a throat punch.
Great except for the last sentence: a throat punch? Really? Seek help.
and while not quite the same, the word "forte" (pronounced 'fort', something you are good at) which has now simply "for-tay". Idiots just won that one and I think even dictionaries have given up.
Some legitimate phrases are bugsome because they are needlessly confusing:
”it’s importance can’t be overemphasized”: Does it mean it is so important that no amount of emphasis is too much or is it so unimportant that it can’t possibly be emphasized much by anyone in their right mind?
”not nearly enough”: Does it mean far from enough or does it mean what it literally says: enough or more than enough or far from enough?
Chomping isn't incorrect, champ is defined as another term for chomp. MW dictionary even uses either interchangeably in the phase..
Correct
Not the same. A horse may "chomp on" the bit but it's not the same as "champing at the bit". "Champing at the bit means the horse is tugging at the bit, as in, he's impatient and ready to go. He chomps on the bit when he has no particular place to go. He champs at the bit when he's impatient and wants to go back to the barn.
The difference in a lot of these words and idioms isn't a change in the usage, but a change in the delivery -- the availability of online dictionaries. I've noticed that the online dictionaries have changed definitions in the last 25 years. For instance: cat-calling vs wolf whistles. Both have completely different meanings. In the last 25 years they've become blurred, in favor of the confusion. Cat-calling is a shrill sound of disapproval. Like what you would hear at British Parliament. Wolf whistles are are lewd sounds/words at a woman -- the typical example being as she walks by a construction site.
While you could say that usage changes/blurs everything, which is generally true, but in this case it isn't. Think about it, wolf whistle or cat-call. Which idiom sounds right to you?
Now, the big one, which is going to come to a surprise you. Back in Chaucer's day the verb "ask" was actually "axe". Really. I axe you, "Did you make a trumpet with your rumpet?"
This post was edited 13 minutes after it was posted.
Not an expression, but for some reason everyone keeps using "insidious" as a blanket term for something that is really bad. "Israel's insidious bombing attacks on Gaza are a war crime" would be an example.
Not an expression, but for some reason everyone keeps using "insidious" as a blanket term for something that is really bad. "Israel's insidious bombing attacks on Gaza are a war crime" would be an example.
I've never heard of insidious being misused that way? There is nothing insidious about bombing.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.