Pet Pedant Peeve (first in an ongoing series)

[taimatsu]

Seen twice this morning already - nowhere on LJ, so I'm not getting at you guys - tenants for tenets.

A tenant is a person who lives in or, especially, rents a house or other dwelling.
A tenet is a principle, opinion, doctrine or similar, espoused by a person or group.

"The tenants who rent my house make a lot of noise and the neighbours are complaining."

"Prayer and charitable giving are two of the core tenets of Islam."

These two words have entirely different meanings and it is worth keeping them separate.

Comments

[ashfae.livejournal.com]

"Lose" and "loose" are still my most hated ones.

[kaet.livejournal.com]

I like the idea of a tenant of a religion.

[bateleur.livejournal.com]

Careful, I've been known to flip out and kill things in the presence of 'loose' misuse. Or even the mere mention of it.

That and people using 'ie.' when they mean 'eg.'.

[mrdreadful.livejournal.com]

My particular language peeve is when people mix up "bought" and "brought".

[cultureofdoubt.livejournal.com]

Such pendants, all of you.

[crocodilewings.livejournal.com]

The word "intermittent".

Its classical definition means "subject to reversal of state at regular intervals", but the majority of end-users reporting faults to tech support use it to mean "randomly, with no discernible pattern or cause".

It's a rare example of a single word having two antonymical definitions, and the one that's fallen into the most common usage is the wrong one.

Raaaah!

[minigoth.livejournal.com]

I've not actually come across that one. Yet... I am slightly surprised that people get those two words mixed up, since they aren't that much alike, neither in spelling nor pronunciation.
(And yes, given that I can spell pronunciation correctly, I do know that my stationery is stationary...)

[diffrentcolours]

Excommunication == eviction?

[minigoth.livejournal.com]

Oh, I agree. I live in Sweden, where English is (mis)used far too much, and I think I see those particular words incorrectly used more often than correctly.

[minigoth.livejournal.com]

Bet the rents are extortionate, though.

[karohemd.livejournal.com]

People using a foreign language incorrectly is perfectly OK in my book (although I never blame my own errors on being German), I think the main issue here is native speakers.

What else? Let's see...

[karohemd.livejournal.com]

there-their
you're-your
its-it's
would of This is the one that surprises me the most because it makes no sense whatsoever.

Re: What else? Let's see...

[crocodilewings.livejournal.com]

The words "of" and "have" are phonetically indistinct in a lot of English dialects. If you're not remotely versed in linguistics, there's no reason for you to know the difference. You just say what you hear.

[minigoth.livejournal.com]

That is OK in my book too, but when it comes to all sorts of companies producing ads and commercials in another tongue than that which is spoken in the country they're marketing the product, is not OK. Especially not when they cannot even use the foreign language in question correctly.

Re: What else? Let's see...

[karohemd.livejournal.com]

I'm perfectly aware it's phonetic spelling but *looking* at the "of" should immediately throw you off if you have the tiniest bit of understanding of English.

This isn't really apparent in "loose" and "lose" for example. There are phonetic differences (short u in loose, longer in lose) but the words aren't that distinct.

Bear in mind these are outside observations from a non-native speaker and I'm aware that the processes involved in learning your native language and a foreign one are different.
It's odd, though as a number of people always complain that my English is better than theirs. ;o)

[karohemd.livejournal.com]

OK, "professional" use is slightly different.
Not that many "professional" texts produced in English speaking countries are any good, either.

[akcipitrokulo.livejournal.com]

Ah - I wasn't aware of that proper meaning - will avoid the wrong one from now on!

Re: What else? Let's see...

[akcipitrokulo.livejournal.com]

I've never got the "would of" either - and "have" and "of" sound different!

Mind you, I also get very irritated by the idea that words ending in "er" rhyme with words ending in "a" - no they don't! (Or don't if they are pronounced correctly anyway - so casual use it still sounds wrong, but in professional or teaching materials suggesting that they rhyme will make me rant.)

[akcipitrokulo.livejournal.com]

I've not come across that one before... I have come across people writing about the "tennant" of a house. In training documents. GRR!

[crocodilewings.livejournal.com]

That's the problem with the phenomenon, though. Language has no normative body, so enough people using the "wrong" definition of a word makes it the right definition. By resisting the change, you cause more ambiguity.

It's like how the word "implicit" has developed the new meaning of "without reservation" because so many people have heard it in the context of "implicit trust".

[tea-cantata.livejournal.com]

One that makes me cringe is "prodigy" / "protegé". Grrrrr.

[tea-cantata.livejournal.com]

Er, possibly with more acute accents.

Re: What else? Let's see...

[ladyfrances.livejournal.com]

'Of' and 'have' do sound different, but after a word ending in 'd' you tend not to fully enunciate the 'h' of have, leaving you with a 'av' sound that is very similar to the 'ov' sound of 'of'.

People are very unlikely to say 'I of been to the park' (a situation where you are not following the 'd' sound) but they might say 'I should of been to the park' or 'I'd of rather been to the park'.

To make up an example: If I say out loud 'The dead of come to life!', it doesn't sound too weird (it looks totally wrong written however), whereas the aforementioned 'I of been to the park' sounds utterly wrong.

While many 'er'/'a' endings don't work I'd be happy rhyming something like 'agenda' with 'render'.

Re: What else? Let's see...

[akcipitrokulo.livejournal.com]

The have/of thing makes sense thinking of it like that - still wrong! It also occurs that the contraction "would've" is correct, but would lead fairly easily to using "of". Grr.

Agenda/Render - you'd either have to mispronounce agenda as "agender" or render as "rendah".

Again, it's more when it's written down as "something that rhymes" (especially when it's by professionals) than when people are speaking that annoys me.

[akcipitrokulo.livejournal.com]

But if you had one you'd hope they would be the other ;-)

[tea-cantata.livejournal.com]

Indeed - unprotected prodigying is very dangerous ;-)

[akcipitrokulo.livejournal.com]

Always to be approached with care :)

Re: What else? Let's see...

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

"have" and "of" sound different

Not where I come from¹, they don't - they're both pronounced "əv".

---

1 (Essex)

[baratron.livejournal.com]

My current pet peeve is with people who still do London phone numbers incorrectly. In 2000, the code for London was changed to 020. Old 0171 numbers became 020 7 and old 0181 numbers became 020 8.

The code for London is 020 followed by an 8 digit number. If you believe the code for outer London is 0208 and therefore pick up the phone in outer London and dial a 7 digit number, you won't get through. You need to dial that initial 8.

Just yesterday a card came through my door from the "Canbury Safer Neighbourhoods Team" (some variant of the police, iirc) with a freaking 0208 number on it! ARGH! This is 2008, and we've had 8 years to adjust to the change.

This blogger agrees with me (http://www.currybet.net/cbet_blog/2005/05/london_phone_numbers_change_again.php).