2004-10-13 - 9:48 p.m.

as a matter of fact yes, I am perfect, thankyouverymuch

Focusing on small annoyances helps you ignore the large annoyances over which you have no control. So let's talk spelling pet peeves, shall we? In fact, most of these are not a matter of spelling but of confusing one word with another (possibly imaginary) word.

Going through "withdrawl" (is this something that happens when Southerners move north?).

People whose interest is "peaked" (makes me think their interest is made of egg whites and they wanted meringue), not to mention "peeked" (it's "piqued").

The lack of distinction between "site" and "sight," sometimes including "cite." When someone writes that something is "nowhere in site," I always want to suggest that maybe they're using the wrong URL.

Let's not even talk about "it's" vs. "its" and "who's" vs. "whose" and "your" vs. "you're." Although we can talk about how if you're going to spell out vs., it's "versus" and not "verses."

People who don't have what they need and have to "make due." Or even more amusingly, "make dew" (it's "make do").

The result of a cause is an "effect," not an "affect." Although a great many things could affect an effect. Also, people who are told they just need to "except" something probably already wish they were allowed to do so.

If you think someone's point is "mute," perhaps you should follow its example. If it's "moot," go right ahead.

In the same vein, "breath" is a noun and rhymes with death, not seethe. "Loose" is an adjective and rhymes with moose, not booze.

To borrow a memory trick I learned long, long ago: alright is alwrong. "All right" is a two-word phrase.

"Is is." As in, "the problem is, is this" or "my question is, is what do we do" or very often, "the thing is, is that..." whatever the thing is. The truth is, you only need one "is" in there.

These () are parentheses. One of them is not a parenthesee. It's a parenthesis. This * is an asterisk. Not an asteRIK. An asteRISK.

Here's one that I just recently learned myself: "nauseous" vs. "nauseated." Technically speaking, "nauseous" means sickening, not sick. So if you say you feel nauseous, it means you think you're making other people sick. This is used incorrectly so much more often than correctly, that I think it's on its way to getting its technical definition changed. Same for "momentarily" (which technically means for a moment, and not in a moment) and "hopefully" (which is only used correctly to modify a verb, like the adverb it is, and not as a replacement for "I hope").

I hate the word "irregardless." It's no one's fault. I just do. Also "inflammable" and "unravel." Seriously, if something starts to ravel, does unraveling it fix the situation? I think not.

Strangely enough, "could of" and "would of" don't bother me a bit.

Here's another that doesn't really annoy me; it just leaps out at me because I'm a geek. The abbreviation i.e. is not interchangeable with e.g. The former is Latin for "that is" (id est) and is used when you're going to rephrase or explain what came before it. The latter is Latin for "for example" (exemplia gratia) and is used when you're going to cite examples. While we're at it, it's "etc." and not "ect." Unless you have a hairball.

While I'm being all non-English, it's not "wa la." It's voila.

Oh, and another one I just learned, while I'm pretending to speak French. Many English speakers will pronounce coup de grace as "coo de gra." It should be "coo de grahs" with an "s" sound. Otherwise you're saying coup de gras which basically means you're hitting someone with fat... which probably isn't what you meant.

And before you start pointing out the errors I've probably made in what I've written here, let me just say: you know, like, soooooooooooo what? Lighten up already. For instance, I know that properly you shouldn't use "you" all the time like I do when referring to the human race at large. But I'm addicted to second person and I'm not ready for the 12-step program yet. Actually, you can tell me. If it's something I'm getting wrong on purpose, I won't really care. If it's something I'm getting wrong because I really don't know any better, I'd love to learn.

When you're speaking or even writing informally... no biggie. But when you're writing or speaking in a situation in which you're supposed to be semi-professional, the above things annoy me no end. Sometimes they annoy me just in a pet peevish sort of way even when used in informal writing. Not enough that I become the grammar police and get all up in people's faces. Just enough to write a diary entry about it, I guess.

Could be worse. My husband gets annoyed when people say chaise lounge, because it's such a bastardization of the original French. I tell him I feel for him; I hate it when people screw up phrases borrowed from Klingon and mispronounce them, too.

No, he's not French. But he speaks French. As does his mother. It's the primary language in which they have their screaming arguments. Ever heard a very big man with a very deep voice yell loudly in perfectly accented French? Language of love, my ass. It's wicked funny, actually. Well, it is since he's not yelling at me.

And yes, I know about my overuse of "actually." But don't tell me "way" and "wicked" aren't adverbs. Those are shibboleths.

Now there's a cool word for you.

Time to go back to the real world? Oh, all right.

my mood -

the mood of the whole world wide bleepin' web -