Please state in which country your phrase tends to be used, what the phrase is, and what it should be.

Example:

In America, recently came across “back-petal”, instead of back-pedal. Also, still hearing “for all intensive purposes” instead of “for all intents and purposes”.

  • @RBWells
    link
    341 month ago

    Discreet vs Discrete used to crack me up on dating sites. All those guys looking for discrete hookups - which kind of makes sense but I am sure is not what they meant.

    I literally ground my teeth today because I got an email from a customer service person saying “You’re package was returned to us”. Not a phishing email with an intentional misspelling, a legitimate email for a real order I made. If it is your JOB to send messages like this they ought not have misspellings.

    So the context matters to me. I am more tolerant of spelling errors and mis-phrasing in everyday life than in a professional communication.

    • @Feathercrown
      link
      English
      41 month ago

      they ought not have misspellings

      Wouldn’t it be “ought not to”?

      • @RBWells
        link
        61 month ago

        Why no! In the negative (ought not) you don’t need the to.

        • @Feathercrown
          link
          English
          41 month ago

          Neat. That gives me old British author vibes

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          11 month ago

          To my ears it sounds weird without the “to”, but so does “fraught” instead of “fraught with [something]”, which is now common-ish.