Most Bizarre Errors You Constantly See

[conmag9]

The use of "literally" as emphasis, rather than what it actually means. Then I learned that at least one dictionary actually changed its definition to include the idea that literally can also mean figuratively. I wanted to find the source of this linguistic evil and choke it out of them.

I'm also easily annoyed by the phrase "could care less". COULDN'T care less is perfectly sensible, but "could care less" is useless and conveys the opposite point that most people who use it are trying to make. It's such a simple error, I don't understand why it's so common. Similarly, abuse of "much less" and "let alone" is startling common where people get the severity order mixed up (ie. "He couldn't program a VCR, let alone write code for a major company" is the correct use. I'll see people reverse it all the time. Obviously jokes about VCR programing aside).

There are other things, I'm sure.

 

[Senor Koquonfaes]

Also... as it [the RPG] is a "tank busting" weapon, with a specifically designed shaped charge that melts through the tanks armour, creating a fragment inside that bounces around and killing everyone inside

This is a misconception as well. HEAT relies on kinetic energy rather than heat to defeat armour; it doesn't melt its way through anything any more than a water jet cutter. On impact, the shaped charge can incapacitate a tank either by destroying vital equipment such as hydraulic lines, or by killing crew members by directly hitting them or by spalling armour and interior fixtures.

 

[Thaluikhain]

EDIT: Just looked it up... well... the more you know! I only use weapons with magazines, so that is what we call them in the British Armed Forces, but I can see how others often get it wrong!

I thought the UK military did some basic training using old-fashioned bolt action rifles...and you don't have clips to hold ammunition that isn't in magazines?

Though, the one that bugs me a bit is the M1 Garand clip. It sits inside the weapon, difficult to top up once it's inside, and it ejects once it's empty. That sounds a lot like a magazine to me.

Anyhoo, apparently in the US, some manufactures label them "magazine clips", because of this.

Personally, I kinda want to live in the US, and have an old fashioned pistol fed by stripper clips, just so I can trip up shopkeepers that know their terminology by asking for a "clip of 9mm bullets for my handgun". That seems like a bit of work, though.

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

I thought the UK military did some basic training using old-fashioned bolt action rifles...and you don't have clips to hold ammunition that isn't in magazines?

Though, the one that bugs me a bit is the M1 Garand clip. It sits inside the weapon, difficult to top up once it's inside, and it ejects once it's empty. That sounds a lot like a magazine to me.

Anyhoo, apparently in the US, some manufactures label them "magazine clips", because of this.

Personally, I kinda want to live in the US, and have an old fashioned pistol fed by stripper clips, just so I can trip up shopkeepers that know their terminology by asking for a "clip of 9mm bullets for my handgun". That seems like a bit of work, though.

No, we all do basic training with the L85-A2, which uses a 30 round mag. The only other standard weapon we use is the Browning L9A1. The infantry units on the other hand use many and more weapon types... but we just have the 2. When I deploy I would usually only take a pistol as well. Not being infantry there is not much use me taking anything more. Ammo that isn't in magazines...? I've only seen it in boxes before bombing up. We do have a thing which is slightly like a clip used to reload magazines faster, but that cannot be attached to the rifle in any way.

 

[Thaluikhain]

No, we all do basic training with the L85-A2, which uses a 30 round mag.

Maybe I was thinking of cadets there.

What unit are you in, if you don't mind me asking?

 

[Quazimofo]

"Well, that escalated quickly."

It's "Boy", not "Well". And the emphasis is on "quickly", not on "that".

Wait, thats a quote?.......
Oh right, anchorman. Pretty good movie, but a bit overrated (Will Ferrell's not a bad actor, but I don't find him nearly as funny as everyone else seems to. And even then the jokes are only funny to me once).

Yeah that was just a thing I say as the situation calls for it. Have been doing it since before the movie, no plans on stopping even as the sequel is coming around. I think in the general usage it's just a phrase to be used now rather than a quote, which makes sense because the movie is almost 10 years old.

Edit: I'm aware how hypocritical I'm going to sound in the following paragraphs considering what I just said above. Let me just say that there is a difference between poor grammar and misquotes which are easily usable as phrases in general life. "That escalated quickly." "I'm on top of the world" "There's no place like home" "the stuff that dreams are made of" "(insert clint eastwood quote here)". The latter adds to the language, the former screws with what already works well. With that, to the rest of the post!

Thusly. It literally started as a joke word parodying people who use big words without understanding what they mean, and now it's in the popular usage as a substitute for Thus which makes the speaker sound pretentious.
I blame the big bang theory for this one. Fucking everything sheldon says more than once people seem to want to quote, and it's just damn annoying (the quote in question "I informed you thusly", because he tired of "I told you so" when they didn't get into a screening of Raiders of the Lost Ark with bonus footage).

What the hell is wrong with thus? It's a perfectly good word! No need to add extra suffixes/prefixes to functional words, it just molests the language (thusly and irregardless being the egregious offenders).

And those who think 'wherefore art thou?' means 'where are you?' are getting fed to the bear.

Well that one at least makes sense. Considering how massively different english was when the play was written, it's hardly a stretch to see why people make that mistake (since it LOOKS like an odd way to say "where").



And then finally I'll add one to the "theory" frustratio..... wait.

for me its this weird development of people saying " turrent" instead of turret. i thought it was just a typo but im seeing more and more people use it

DAMNIT THE IDIOTS ARE WINNING. It's hard enough to talk to stupid people who don't think they are stupid now! How will it be possible in 10 years when they develop what amounts to a sub-language of english?
Gah, I feel like we really REALLY need to put a lot more emphasis on grammar, punctuation, spelling, and vocabulary in our schools: and make regular examinations of all adults a thing. I can only beat so many people over the head with a dictionary.

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

No, we all do basic training with the L85-A2, which uses a 30 round mag.

Maybe I was thinking of cadets there.

What unit are you in, if you don't mind me asking?

I work at RAF High Wycombe as part of the Air Component. I work in a bunker too... so I rarely see grass and mud let alone roll around in it!

But all forces do basic training with the same rifle. There is a set 16 hour training done for everyone as part of initial training... even padres have to do it!

 

[SilkySkyKitten]

And the clip/magazine thing.

I must admit I genuinely have no idea what the distinction between these terms is, so I probably get it wrong. I tend to use them interchangeably for "metal thing with bullets in which plugs into a gun"

Allow me to explain:

Spoiler: This is a clip

Spoiler: This is a magazine

Or, to explain in words: a Clip is an item that is designed to store a set of rounds together for insertion into a weapon or into a magazine. A Magazine is a device which not only is designed to store a set of rounds together but is also designed to feed the rounds into the gun so they can be fired. Thus, the difference is that a Clip only holds ammunition together in a set, whereas a Magazine actually has a mechanism to feed them into the chamber and allow them to be fired off.

... now, that being said, I suppose it theoretically is okay to call a Magazine a Clip (despite how much it would annoy us gun nerds), since a Magazine is designed to hold rounds together in a set kinda like a Clip. However, it would be incredibly wrong to call a Clip a Magazine, since a Clip lacks anything to actually feed rounds into a gun.

 

[Varrdy]

When people write / type "loose" when they mean "lose". You don't "loose" your keys, you "lose" them! I don't know why it gets my goat so much although no matter how many times I say it, intelligent people keep on making the same mistake.

 

[RJ 17]

Spoiler: People that insert the letter -u- into words like -color- and -honor-...the English invented the language, you would think they could spell the words properly!

It's a joke, people, lighten up.

On a more serious note, I've got a problem that runs pretty rampant around here due to the nature of this site and it's orientation towards games: people trying to objectively prove that their opinion on a game is the correct one...specifically "This game is good because of x, y, and z!" No, you just like the game because of x, y, and z. Someone else with entirely different tastes than your own could actually think the game is total garbage specifically because of x, y, and z. Neither one is correct and yet neither one is wrong. When I go into a topic about Final Fantasy X and start talking about why I don't like it, that's all I'm doing: saying "I don't like the game and here is why I don't like it." I'm not trying to convince the people that do like the game to suddenly change their minds and decide that they hate it, I'm just explaining my reasoning behind why I don't like it. You can disagree with my reasoning and challenge it, offering your own perspective on the points that I bring up, but you're never going to prove to me that a game that I don't like is a good game because I've already played it and come to my own conclusion. Just like how I'm never going to be able to prove to you that a game you like is a bad game because you've already played it and come to your own conclusion.

And yet inevitably there will be plenty of people who like the game that take my personal opinion on the matter as an affront and will then try to definitely prove to me that I'm flat-out wrong about the game and that it's fantastic. Yes, I'm saying that the game is bad in my perspective, but my perspective has absolutely nothing to do with yours, nor should my perspective feel like an attack on yours. If you like a game then good for you, I'm glad you were able to find an enjoyable experience. Just understand and accept that what was an enjoyable experience for you won't necessarily mean it's an enjoyable experience for all.

 

[Denamic]

When people say "could of."
"I could of done it differently."
What the actual fuck? What thought process do people go through to make this seem even remotely correct? Never mind grammar or spelling, the word simply has no place there. It both looks and sounds wrong. Better yet, it's by no means exclusive to non-native English speakers.
That shit just drives me up the wall.

 

[beautos]

When people write / type "loose" when they mean "lose". You don't "loose" your keys, you "lose" them! I don't know why it gets my goat so much although no matter how many times I say it, intelligent people keep on making the same mistake.

I have never actually seen this mistake before. But it would annoy me if I came across it.

 

[Queen Michael]

Frankenstein is not the name of the monster, it's the name of the doctor. How the hell did this error begin in the first place?

Fairly simply, Frankenstein is a cool evil sounding name, and the Monster itself was never given an actual name in the book. So you can see how the slightly awkward "Frankenstein's Monster" got changed to just using Frankenstein for the monster.

Was not the creature called "Adam"? Presumably Adam Frankenstein, named after his "dad", though.

Damn, ninja'd by a minute!

I'm sure he was called Adam after the first man (Adam and Eve), and I'm certain it was on QI! (So it must be true!)
I agree about Frankenstein's Monster, and how he's visualised as green, black hair and bolts in his neck. The hell? He was made from dead people's body parts if I remember.
I think that was for a Halloween or horror movie marketing thing, if I had to guess.

I can't find it anywhere. I ctr+f'd it in the digital edition.

 

[jesse220]

When people say "could of."
"I could of done it differently."
What the actual fuck? What thought process do people go through to make this seem even remotely correct? Never mind grammar or spelling, the word simply has no place there. It both looks and sounds wrong. Better yet, it's by no means exclusive to non-native English speakers.
That shit just drives me up the wall.

That comes from people hearing the contraction "could've" and assuming that people are saying "could of".

Breaking today into two words really grinds my gears.

 

[DJjaffacake]

Since Frankenstein's Monster's name got brought ip, allow me to throw in his appearance and how he was created as well. He wasn't stitched together from body parts, he was grown from scratch in a tank using a little bit of Frankenstein's flesh.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Most common error? Misquoting or even attributing quotes to the wrong guy... Hearing people say (also highly "paraphrased" which is a nice way of saying wrong!) "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." for example and attributing it to some revolutionary figure rather than a forward thinking Frenchman who defied censorship to put forward the idea of freedom of religion and religious tolerance. His name was Voltaire people!!! GET IT RIGHT!!!
And this coming from a guy who isn't exactly always thrilled with the French... Hey I can have issues with people and still recognize that they've contributed to the world culture.
Another error: People also tend to tout Separation of Church and state as if it were actually written into the US Constitution as a law. Its not. The only part of SoC mentioned is in the 1st Amendment and not specifically in that term but rather that the government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Meaning that the state nor federal gov't can't make laws that favor one religion over another, which includes atheism. It doesn't mean that civil servants are banned from speaking about their beliefs, nor exhibiting those beliefs. But people take it to an extreme.

 

[Reed Spacer]

People who mis-spell 'lightning' as 'lightening'

 

[Vegosiux]

Meaning that the state nor federal gov't can't make laws that favor one religion over another, which includes atheism.

I'll assume poor wording, but that's another error, talking about atheism as if it was religion.

Oh and while we're on religion, another error I commonly see is assuming that Christianity is the same as Catholicism.

 

[CelestDaer]

The phrase, "Ignorance is Bliss", where the original quote is, 'If folly to be wise, then ignorance is bliss', or something much closer to that effect, meaning, instead of 'let's be dumb', it's 'where being educated is bad, then let's be dumb', so, basically, when in Rome.

 

[Daverson]

Hey guys, do you remember that time we sent people to the moon, then somehow got them back leaving the LEMs Ascent stage [http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/2012/05/11aaEagle3-660x625.jpg] on the lunar surface?

Because, apparently, everyone who works in the entertainment industry does.