FANDOM


Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/List of commonly confused words?

We already have a list of common misspellings. Does anyone think it would be a good idea to have a page for commonly confused words?--Lord OblivionSith holocronSith Emblem 23:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Those are so tricky. "Affect" and "effect" spring to mind, and I've done my best... I also did fixed every instance I could find of the phrase "wreck havoc" instead of "wreak." The one I can't figure out how to search for is "lead," which people are using as the past tense of "lead," when it should be "led." Enochf 23:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC) (with typos, you just pop them in the search engine, and voila)
    • Oh, "effect" is a verb when used in the phrase "to effect repairs," which shows up a few times in the 'pedia. Enochf 18:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      • 'Older' and 'Elder' spring to mind.

Something I discovered just the other day was that the the possesive " its " is not " it's ". It is quite a common mistake amoung many, educated or otherwise. However, the only " it's " in the articles should be in place of "it is". Darth Maddolis 05:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Their, there, and they're. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't know about you guys, but they taught us the its/it's thing in second grade... they implanted it in our minds to always expand it to "it is" to find out if it makes sense. But you're right, it's very very common. That reminds me, "you're" and "your" are also commonly misused, though considering the manual of style on this wiki one would think that one wouldn't happen much except potentially in quotes. Uxviii 06:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • How about the nonexistant word "alot". Boy does that drive me crazy! 24.3.202.85 16:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, shouldn't we not even use the slang term "a lot?" I've had several English teachers flip out over people writing that in formal papers.
    • How about the non-existent word "non-existant"? :-P KEJ 19:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Damn you! Alright, you got me. ;) 24.3.202.85 05:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, I fixed the "alot"s... (sigh) but they'll be back Enochf 07:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There's a good deal of words with apostraphes that either have them in a wrong place, have one when not needed or need one- along with a good deal of complicated, long words by people trying to be smart that are either misspelled or haven't been used since 1920. Darth Maddolis 07:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • underneath This word is only used for physical descriptions. Some people unfortunately use it when they mean "under" (this happens in the Talfaglio article). It's wrong to say "underneath the rule of law" or "underneath the control of the Sith." Then there's a mistake in the text a novel excerpted in Jedi Apprentice: The Captive Temple, an unfortunate bit of writing that includes: "But Obi-Wan knew better. He could sense the sharp distress that ticked underneath the control." No, no, no. The word should be "beneath," not "underneath." Enochf 18:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Starting a list of misused words below. Added to or change. -Fnlayson 18:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • People, I think alot, it's vs its, there, their, they're and this your vs you're are misspellings and are not misused words in the syntactical sense. In pronunciation, they are pretty much the same, people just confuse the way they're spelled. Bear in mind that a word being misused or not is ambiguous. For me, an ESL student, misusing a word means something different than it might mean for native speakers. When someone asks me to say two words I think are commonly misused, however and although come to mind. As a "veteran" English-learner, I know about a lot of instances when I saw students confuse the two and I know it took me a lot of example-analyses to understand the real difference. But I don't add it to the list below because I don't really remember more than one or two instances where I corrected it here at Wookieepedia. I also don't know how common a mistake it is for non-Hungarian ESLers. Affect and effect and underneath and beneath are good examples, though. - TopAce 11:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Misused word listEdit

  • affect and effect (affect is a verb, effect is a noun [except in some cases]. The battle affected the outcome of the war; The battle took a profound effect on the outcome of the war)
  • alot (should be "a lot," but better if "many," "much," etc. is used anyway)
  • avoid means to keep away from something: avoid detection. evade is completely physical: evade the incoming asteroids.
  • economic means related to an area's economy, economical means not wasting money. The economic prosperity of Aldeeran was remarkable; Buy only what you need: try to be economical!
  • it's and its (it's is a contraction of it is or it has, any other use should be its)
  • lead is the 1) present simple form of to lead and 2) the metallic substance; led is the past participle form of to lead. led and lead (2) are pronounced in the same way.
  • price (the amount of money something costs) prize (the reward/award one receives when he wins on a competition or race)
  • task force is a mass of military units dispatched to realize a military goal in a series of battles. strike force is a mass of military units dispatched to perform a single assault on one or multiple targets.
  • there (noun), their (adjective), and they're (contraction of they are)
  • then (adjective for time) instead of than (preposition introducing a comparison)
  • to (preposition) and too (synonym of "also")
  • your (possessive adjective) and you're (contraction of you are)

Correcting words Edit

Several of us have helped with something similar, The Great Typo Hunt. Anybody interested in trying to correct instances of misused words like above? - Fnlayson 19:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I might. One thing that bugs me is contractions. They shouldn't should not be used in "encyclopedic" writing. —Xwing328(Talk) 03:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Good one. I've noticed you change a few contractions. It'd probably be a pain trying to do searches to try and catch some others of these. Do what we can.. -Fnlayson 05:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I used to be against contractions on Wookiee, but not any longer. If you read Wikipedia, you can also see a lot of them. As I read essays during my studies, I also notice a lot of contractions. I don't see a problem with them. As far as I have been told (and as far as I have noticed myself), contractions are definitely permissible in American English texts except in MLA. - TopAce 11:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Contractions are considered less formal. I think fixing them or not is a minor thing. - Fnlayson 22:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

External linksEdit

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.