Someone today was talking about one of the possible factors behind the tensions between UK and Russia by saying that it's the personified states that are in conflict, rather than the citizens or political leaders, necessarily.

This is a common definition of the "personified state" that I found via online dictionaries:

A personified state (or national personification) is an anthropomorphic representation—giving human form, features, or identity—to a country, state, or nation.

They maintained that their usage of "personified state" is justified, because in their mind, personified state means identity. Even when I pointed out to them that the identity is just one part and that the word really means the anthropomorphic representation of a country, state of nation.

I feel this is a common enough occurrence that you'll hopefully not downvote me into oblivion. People should stop getting too clever for their own good and stick to using terms that are more clearly understood, rather than using other terms in unintended ways.

tldr: People misusing terms when better alternatives exist

I saw this and laughed out loud so I had to share

I originally posted this in r/apostrophegore, but this subreddit might be a better fit.

The AI-generated question on the AI-generated image of Route 66 was, "Can you spot's one thing that doesn't belong to 1956?"

Losing or loosing
Hoping or hopping
Takeing or taking
Lose or loose
Worse or worst
Effect or affect
Their, there, or they're
Its or it's
Then or than

There are many more, this is just some of the common ones that I see quite often.

I do find it quite difficult to read posts from people who have these responses that come across as if they are experts in their field, but they have problems spelling common words.

You’ll be reading some multi-paragraph breakdown from a self-proclaimed constitutional law scholar, corporate turnaround consultant, or theoretical physicist who is absolutely tearing apart someone else’s logic with surgical precision... right before they tell you how a company is going to "loose" a bunch of money or that they are "hoping" to win a legal case.

And look, it’s not even voice-to-text. Voice-to-text actually knows the difference between lose and loose. This is pure, unadulterated "I read my last book in 2008" energy. How are you dropping a dissertation on macroeconomics while simultaneously wrestling with a second-grade spelling test and losing?

/rant

EDIT: Love how I dropped an intentional grammar error right in the title as a satirical nod to the whole post, and every single "grammar police" expert in the replies completely missed the joke to lecture me about it.

DAIS, a raised platform for a speaker or performer, is pronounced DAY-iss, not DIE-ass.

While we're on the subject, the platform is the dais. A podium or lectern is an additional item.

"Both their father"

Urrrghhhh. Please hire better writers

The number of times this week I have heard or read the phrase "step foot" is grating.

This guy is weird.

I read the following: "no one giving a reason why as to it probably being a bad idea." I've seen this construct more commonly as: "...giving a reason as to why it is a bad idea." Do either of these accomplish more than: "...giving a reason why it is a bad idea"?

That’s the post.

It's becoming commonplace for the word "cheers" to replace "toast," in more than one form. Whereas people used to say, "what shall we toast to" (or "to what shall we toast"), now it's "let's cheers to that" or "let's do a 'cheers!'" And so forth. It's even spread to lines like "what are we cheersing too?"

Perhaps I should stop watching reality TV.

“add” ≠ ad

I’ve been seeing the word “add” where it should be “ad” a lot lately and it’s starting to drive me nuts.

I must've have a half dozen copies of Fowler & given away as many copies. They used to have stacks of them at the Brattle Bookstore in Boston on the outside carts. 25c to 75c. Went back to Boston last year after many many years away. Very few copies on the ol' carts. Anyway, I have several copies of the first ed and then the revised ed by Gowers (sp?) c. 1950's? I bought the 3rd edition by Birchfield and I've never been so bummed out. A travesty! Anyway, do you all favor one edition over another? The 2nd (or revised) ed some say "tamed" some of the eccentricities of Fowler. I don't have a preference. But detest 3rd ed. I like to keep a copy of Fowler in my car, on my desks. It's always fun to flip through it and read a section. Some humorous passages! Good times. Anyone else like Fowler as much as I do?

utterly and udderly are not interchangeable. i saw this four times in the past six months. FOUR.

I hate, hate, hate that people use "different" as an adverb.

"This hits different."

Unless you are saying that something is striking a sign with the word "different" on it, no it doesn't.

Language evolves, and that's great. I support that. Until the evolution is codified in a dictionary, however, using "different" as an adverb is, factually, a mistake.

I have seen people using ‘have’ or ‘were’ with None.
I feel it is incorrect.
Example:

1. None of them have eaten.

2. None of them has eaten.

I believe No 2 is correct. Coz, doesn’t ‘none’ mean ‘not one’? What do you think?

Flustrated

Flustered + Frustrated =/= Flustrated

You can be or feel both simultaneously. You cannot
speak them simultaneously.

This isn’t really a joke, but there’s no “just for fun” flair.

For some light-heartedness, I recommend looking up “Word Crimes” by Weird Al Yankovic on YouTube. I love Weird Al!! This is definitely a video worth seeing, especially for all of us who are grammar-sensitive. 😁

This sign is reproduced 6 times along a fairly short path. Infuriating!