Loose vs Lose

Singlemalt said:

Uh, actually spitting is the original, became a description way before photography. It evolved something like this:


"

• metaphor: “it’s like he was spat out of his father’s mouth” (1689).
  
  
• metonymy: “he’s the very spit of his father” (1825) — when the metaphor is commonplace enough, it no longer gets spelled out in full.
  
  
• idiom/cliché: “the spit and image of his father” (1859) — a particularly effective wording of the metonymy solidifies into a widely re-used phrase.
  
  
• corruption: “the spitten image” (187 — the original analysis of the phrase is lost.
  
  
• reanalysis: “the spitting image” (1901) — this strange new word “spitten” gets replaced by something which is at least syntactically more comprehensible.
  
  
• further reanalysis/eggcorning: “the splitting image” (1880(!?), 1939) — the phrase changes to something which is more semantically plausible — it’s easier to imagine ways that “splitting image” could have arisen than “spitting image”.

http://english.stackexchange.com/qu...s-the-spitting-image-or-the-splitting-image-o

Click to expand...

whitebb2727 said:

Hmmm. I stand corrected. Thank you.

Click to expand...

pabloesqobar said:

From another thread . . .

View attachment 3500050

Click to expand...

tyler.durden said:

Far be it for me to be pedantic, but I can't take this one any longer. This error is ubiquitous! Online reviews, blogs, every forum... Enough.

Loose = opposite of tight
Lose = opposite of win

They are not interchangeable. How about you? Which lexical or grammatical errors bother you?

Click to expand...

mr sunshine said:

I bought the Christmas lights of the roof twoday. The roof was hi. I bairly didn't fawl.

Click to expand...

Singlemalt said:

I didn't know Mexicans could lisp

Click to expand...

Singlemalt said:

I didn't know Mexicans could lisp

Click to expand...

Singlemalt said:

Uh, actually spitting is the original, became a description way before photography. It evolved something like this:


"

• metaphor: “it’s like he was spat out of his father’s mouth” (1689).
  
  
• metonymy: “he’s the very spit of his father” (1825) — when the metaphor is commonplace enough, it no longer gets spelled out in full.
  
  
• idiom/cliché: “the spit and image of his father” (1859) — a particularly effective wording of the metonymy solidifies into a widely re-used phrase.
  
  
• corruption: “the spitten image” (187 — the original analysis of the phrase is lost.
  
  
• reanalysis: “the spitting image” (1901) — this strange new word “spitten” gets replaced by something which is at least syntactically more comprehensible.
  
  
• further reanalysis/eggcorning: “the splitting image” (1880(!?), 1939) — the phrase changes to something which is more semantically plausible — it’s easier to imagine ways that “splitting image” could have arisen than “spitting image”.

http://english.stackexchange.com/qu...s-the-spitting-image-or-the-splitting-image-o

Click to expand...

Hookabelly said:

SHEEEIT! This is SUCH a peeve of mine both in the written and spoken word. But far be it from me to bitch about it on TNT. but seriously people it's just verbal/written laziness and I know there are some great minds here so take it up a notch and do it right.

My peeves

#1 EXpresso: there is no "x" in the coffee drink. that drives me up a wall
#2 I "seen" it. Did we miss the third grade when Have and Had were introduced? or-

"She don't even know she has a muffin top." it's DOESN'T

#3 There's so many grammatical retards: Did we forget what plural/singular means? This is more nit picky as I notice it's becoming a popular denigration in the laziness of American speech. Even my kid's teachers do it. There ARE so many grammatical retards…

'nuff said. But I still love all you mofo's




YESSSS! I'll just shoot myself now

Click to expand...

pabloesqobar said:

From another thread . . .

View attachment 3500050

Click to expand...