Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2012 November 19

= November 19 =

Incident vs accident
Happy new week. The origine of my question roots in the article Demon core where they use 10 times the word "incident", for me its strange because 2 personnes died nearly at the moment, some in the following weeks and others in the following years. In the dictionnaries, they translate incident(en) into incident(fr). In French we would never name something like that incident(fr) but accident(fr) because some people died. For me there is a flaw, or in the article, or in the dictionaries (may be it's too easy to translate incident by incident !).

So question: are incident and accident real synonymous? Doesn't an accident describe a more serious situation. Thank you for reading.--Joël DESHAIES (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * They may be used as synonyms. Incident is broader though, and may refer to an accident or a volitional act. Generally, there is some cause and effect in a limited time period. Formally, incident is often used in a legal context, but it is not limited to that use.  Incident has also become, in particular, associated with nuclear accidents.  (Perhaps because there is complex cause and effect -- or the government? did not wish to associate them with accidents). In short, an incident, in English, can result in death, so if it cannot in French, another word for the concept might be better translation.Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In modern English usage, an incident is just anything that happens good or bad, intentionally or unintentionally, that is worth noting in some context. Police report "incidents" because they don't take sides or come to conclusions in their initial reports--prosecutors and courts do that.  An accident is something that is unintentional, by mistake, or unrelated to the intended or essential nature of a thing.  An accident in the case of people dying is an unintentional occurrence, which falls under incident, which is any notable occurrence.  A crime committed on purpose would be an incident, but not an accident. See incident, accident. μηδείς (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, well put. Joël, an accident is not always "more serious".  If you spill a glass of wine, that's an accident, even if no one gets hurt.
 * If someone says "I had an accident", that's a little more specific, and usually means either a collision involving some form of transport, or loss of control of bodily functions. If someone "was an accident", that means a different sort of loss of control of bodily functions, further in the past. --Trovatore (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, Joël, the likely reason they use the two different terms in the article is that it is considered bad writing style to use the identical word over again in English when a suitable substitute exists. I strenuously avoid repeating myself within the same sentence or even paragraph unless no other appropriate alternative is possible. I don't know what this stylistic rule is called; perhaps someone who does can provide a link. μηδείς (talk) 04:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fowler called it elegant variation, and generally disapproved of it. --Trovatore (talk) 05:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I knew we had to have an article. That one's quite interesting in presenting largely Fowler's view and nothing or nobody else.  The rule still applies no matter Fowler's derision.  The examples he provides are silly, and it would be trivial to provide an atrociously written paragraph that could be made much easier to read with a little variation. μηδείς (talk) 05:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

OP writting. Thank you for your quick and good explainations.--Joël DESHAIES (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, we enjoyed your question. μηδείς (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Non PIE forms of sheep counting
I could swear when reading about old European forms of sheep counting I had come acrost a system that was maybe based on either fours or twenties and which was not based on PIE derived roots like the Celtic yan tan tethera. Has anybody got any idea if such a system exists? (Outside, but perhaps related to Basque, of course?) Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have an answer, but here's an interesting article about how the Basque system was used by immigrants in California, and how apparently some non-Basque farmers adopted the same method. [[User:Lesgles|Lesgles] (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I can get into JSTOR but not through your link, can you give the article and author names?. What I am really looking for is a method found in Europe but not necessarily directly traceable to Basque.  I seem to remember it being used in the Bell Beaker Culture area.  I might be totally off, but I remember reading about it about a decade ago, when i was already familiar with Welsh, and it was not a Celtic system or attributed directly to Basque. μηδείς (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's definitely not that, then. Here's the info, though: Frank P. Araujo, "Counting Sheep in Basque", Anthropological Linguistics, Vol. 17, No. 4 (Apr., 1975), pp. 139-145. Lesgles (talk) 01:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's the same vigesimal system, but just with the standard Basque numbers. I am still holding out hope some other system not in Britain or in Basque exists. μηδείς (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There's some Welsh sheep counting discussion here. Love those Welsh counting words - pimp, dik, bumfit, and figgit. Zoonoses (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting source, I'll request it on interlibrary. I note the number "tox" standing for sixty in Germanic.  Unfortunately google omitted the next page. μηδείς (talk) 05:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Just a thought, Medeis - of course you're aware of the French numbering system which is in fours and twenties (quatre vingts for 80), I wonder if the ancestor of this is what you're looking for? --TammyMoet (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, Tammy, the French system is usually blamed on the Gaulish (Celtic) substratum, and the similarities between the Basque and Celtic systems are usually attributed to either a third earlier influence or the influence of the extinct relatives of Basque on Celtic. It would be interesting to see if some of the eastern forms of Celtic had counting systems like these.  There are even arguments that PIE itself earlier had a system based on fours, related to the fact that the word for eight seems to be an old dual form meaning two sets of four.  What I am looking for is a set of words used in Western Europe in certain counting situations that are not actually Basque and that are not PIE, but are like the Welsh sheep-counting words in English, remnants of an earlier culture.  Russian, with its odd word for forty (sorok) might be an example, but I don't know that word's etymology.  μηδείς (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a bit complicated, but maybe some of it is relevant (no sheep, though). In Old East Slavic sorok, which replaced the regular form chetyre desęte, meant a "group of 40 sable skins". Vasmer gives several etymologies: (1) It was borrowed from the Greek sarákonta, "forty", but this is unlikely because the Greek word was already shortened to saránta by the time it would have been borrowed into Russia, and it doesn't explain the "sable skins" meaning. (2) It derives from the Russian sorochka, "shirt", in imitation of Old Norse serkr, which means both "shirt" and "200 skins". Vasmer also notes a semantic parallel in Slovak meru, "forty", which apparently comes from Hungarian mérő, "bag". He ends, "In the Old Norse system of counting 1 serkr = 5 timbr, and 1 timbr = 40 skins. According to E. Schröder, 'the history of monetary units is, as a rule, a history of a reduction in their value." In his commentary to the dictionary, Trubachev writes "Nevertheless, these etymologies are not satisfactory. It is possible that sorok derives from Old East Slavic *sъrъk, borrowed from Turkic, cf. Turkish kırk, "forty", with dissimilation k - k > s - k; cf., possibly, sobaka < Turkic köbäk." Lesgles (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, very interesting, but a citation would be more helpful than a name--I'll be going to the library after I get home tonight, so I'd like to pester the ref desk librarian to get me some ILL's.


 * I am also reminded of inka dinka bottle of ink, one fell out and you stink. Sounds like a one-a and a two-a  μηδείς (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The link has some publication dates with the names, but I don't have the full references. There might be an index somewhere with the full citations, but I couldn't find it. Lesgles (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, I missed the reflink and saw only the link to our Vasmer article. I love Tower of Babel and use it often. μηδείς (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Is there any significance to a parrot being named 'Mithu'?
When watching parrot videos on YouTube over the years, I have noticed that there appear to be loads of pets parrots from the Indian subcontinent and surrounding areas that are named 'Mithu' (or Mittu, or Mitu).

Is there any particular reason why this is considered a good name for a parrot in that part of the world? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * A quick google search (not definitive) suggests that it means "Sweety". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Presumably it has a similar culture-specific arbitrary significance like that we assign in English to the name Polly. 24.92.74.238 (talk) 05:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This item has a lot of interesting ideas on why parrots are called "Poll" or "Polly". Nothing about "Mithu", though. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Sanskrit
What is the meaning of the word "adhidebrishu" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.110.113.255 (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Could be a locative plural form (depending exactly what "sh" means). AnonMoos (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Arabic translation needed
Sorry for poor quality. It relates to meat - the big text clearly says halal in English and Arabic below. I need the curved text translated. Any help very much appreciated. This is quite urgent. Moondyne (talk) 07:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It says something like "this product conforms to Islamic Sharia law" (the last two words are definitely "Islamic Sharia" at least). Adam Bishop (talk) 12:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That would make sense.  Moondyne (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Or more literally, now that I've taken a better look, it says "slaughtered conforming to Islamic sharia". Adam Bishop (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Even more sense. Thanks. Moondyne (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

English gramatical use of the phrase "easier said than done"
Is the use of the phrase "easier said than done" correct in this sentence?

Person A claims that doing activity A is "easier said than done" because despite saying that Activity A will be done, it has not been done. Person B claims that its not "easier said than done" because Activity A is easy to do. Person A questions Person B on why it hasn't been done if Activity A is so easy. Person A responds that it is because they cannot be bothered.

Is Persons A's use of this term correct? Or is person B correct in his argument? And why? Is this correct in either British or American English and wrong in the other? Thanks. 92.234.163.11 (talk) 10:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It usually refers to something that sounds easy in theory, but when you come to actually do it, you find it's not quite so easy. An example could be trying to buy a house at auction, do it up and sell it for a profit. It would take about 10 seconds to say that sentence, but could take 18 months to actually do it. It's not usually about not being bothered to do something that should be easy, more like finding a lot of obstacles and problems when you actually do do it. (BrEng here) --TammyMoet (talk) 10:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see a grammatical issue here. I guess it's more of a rhetorical issue.  Of course, almost everything is easier said than done. Turning on the light is quite easy, but saying that you'll turn on the light without getting up to do it is obviously easier. In this case, person A is saying "easier said than done" as a kind of excuse.  Marco polo (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Things which are not easier said than done are presumably no sooner said than done. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * An adverb modifies a verb: "more easily said than done".
 * —Wavelength (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In the expression "more easily said than done", the participial adjective "said" is modified by the adverbial phrase "more easily". In the expression "is more easily said than done", the compound verb "is said" is modified by the adverbial phrase "more easily".
 * —Wavelength (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Dangling participle... or not?
Hi,

I've seen this example of a dangling modifier on several websites.

``The robber ran from the policeman, still holding the money in his hands."

According to the websites that cite this example, the sentence is ambiguous; it could be either the robber or the policeman who is holding the money. I don't understand the ambiguity. To me, it's clear that the verb `ran' and the participle `holding' both modify the robber. To me, the sentence is syntactically indistinguishable from "the robber ran, still holding the money." Am I crazy to think this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.38.60 (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit: The above websites advise writers to avoid sentences in which two nouns in the first phrase can each modify the phrase following the comma. Consider:

``The man falls to the ground, holding his head in his hands."

If we followed the advice of the websites above, the above phrase will have to be rewritten---for what if it is the ground that is holding [his] head in [his] hands? Another, less perverse, example:

``[...] that [Derrida] opposed both the FLN and the partisans of Algérie française, holding out for a third way that might allow natives[...]"

Here, can the FLN and the partisans of Algérie française be the ones that are holding out? Or is it Derrida? The sentence writer means Derrida, of course, but the above websites would hold that the fragment is ambiguous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.38.60 (talk) 14:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit: the last sentence fragment was taken from an article in the London Review of Books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.38.60 (talk) 14:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I would agree these are unambiguous examples, although I'm not an expert. I cannot see how confusion could realistically arise. Personally I take it a normative guideline that the subject of the sentence retains the strongest force. You would at least need to drop the comma to make the sentence lose this: "The man hit the policeman wearing a uniform." I guess that the comma plus common sense make things clear: The robber was still holding the money (common sense) and he ran from the policeman - comma - holding the money. I could go on forever about something like this, gradually convincing myself that I'm wrong, but I had trouble even working out the possible ambiguity. IBE (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Context matters. In your second example, I don't see a problem, because the ground obviously doesn't have hands.  There is no ambiguity.  In your first example, though, there is potential ambiguity.  It's possible that the policeman has seized the money from the robber, who then gets away.  I find the Derrida example even more open to ambiguity. Where there is any risk of ambiguity, it is always better to move the participle closer to the noun that it modifies. So, for example, "The robber, still holding the money in his hands, ran away from the policeman."  Or, "Holding out for a third way that might allow the natives . . ., Derrida opposed both . . ."  I know that there was a clause in the original preceding Derrida's name, followed by the conjunction "that".  This sentence, however, is already quite long.  I would look for a way to break the longer sentence instead of using the conjunction "that". Marco polo (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't find the sentence ambiguous, because in my idiolect such a modifier can attach to a non-subject only if it is an identifying modifier (eg The policeman shot the man holding the money) In The policeman shot the man, holding the money, it is unambiguously the policeman who is holding the money. Having said which, pragmatically I might decide that that interpretation is so unlikely that the speaker must have been in error and reparse it; but that goes beyond what I would normally consider grammaticality. --ColinFine (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * IBE, the fact that a certain expression could not possibly mean what it purports to mean, and hence the true meaning is readily apparent, does not mean that the sentence is acceptable and is not in need of correction. Here's a sentence I encountered last night:


 * * No longer involved with politics, Arkell's head had been smashed in with a bedside lamp, an electric cord was wrapped tightly around his neck, and from his eyes and cheeks tie-pins protruded.


 * Obviously, it wasn't intending us to understand that Arkell's head had retired from politics (although after the attacker had done with him, his head was not involved in anything much at all). Nevertheless, I changed it to make what it said match what it was trying to say.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  19:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Ov
Why is the word "of" not spelled with a v? A sound shift or for etymology's sake? Pokajanje &#124; Talk 16:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Terminal -v is extremely rare in English; indeed, I can't readily think of an English word ending in -v that does not derive from Romany. English spelling generally does not alter words to match their pronunciation; there is no centralised academy which could enforce such a change even if it were desirable. From a glance at of, and not beign intimately familiar with the word's earlier uses, it does appear that there has been a sound shift. This probably goes with the word becoming unstressed. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * English has a lot of final [v] in words which are not recent borrowings; however, it's usually spelled "ve"... AnonMoos (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that e used to be pronounced. -- Jayron  32  20:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * In Old English, [f] and [v] were positionally determined variants of the same phoneme /f/, and were written with the same letter 'f'. Word-finally this would normally be realised as [f] (modern words ending in /v/ such as live and glove were vowel-final). But of being an enclitic, its /f/ was effectively non-final, and often intervocal, so it was often realised as [v]. This pronunciation was generalised, but the spelling remained. --ColinFine (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Colin has the right answer. As an interesting side note, of is an unstressed form of off, just like an is an unstressed form of one. μηδείς (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think "of" owes the voicing of its [v] to Old English allophonies. It's more likely due to a quasi-sporadic change in late middle English / early modern English occasionally semi-jokingly called "second Verner's law" (a voicing of fricatives after an unstressed vowel).  This is what explains cases of "ss" pronounced [z] ("possess", "dessert"), [gz] in "exhibit" as opposed to [ks] in "exhibition", and probably the [z] form of noun plural and possessive endings, and of the verb third singular present ending, when not next to a consonant... AnonMoos (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Colin's explanation matches my memory. AnonMoos's egzamples sound good, but they are intervocalic within a single word.  Perhaps some sources would be good? μηδείς (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Maan News translation
I would like an accurate translation of paragraph six and seven of this article in Maan News. ' Ankh '. Morpork  20:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Does clicking English at the top of the page there not help? μηδείς (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No. That takes me to the main website, I want that specific article translated. ' Ankh '. Morpork  09:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to translate, but it's an anti-semitic rant. --Xuxl (talk) 12:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Whatever happened to the distinctions between there/their/they're and than/then?
Are the distinctions between these homophones really under threat of extinction? Is it a recent development or have most English speaking people really been this bad at spelling all along, but nobody noticed until the "freedom of the press" became "free presses for all" when the internet came along? f-- 23:52, 19 November 2012‎ User:Dodger67


 * Those are common brainfarts even for the best spellers among us. I've been a professional writer and translator for 30 years, and I still often type "your" instead of "you're". If it's important, we go back and proof read. On the internet, however, it's not always as important, so we let it slip. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Not for all of the best spellers, DV. God knows, I am very far from immune to error generally, but one thing I pride myself on is getting these spellings right first time every time.  At my school the ethos was that it's important to say and write what you mean (and vice-versa), not something that may sound or look like what you mean but isn't actually what you mean.  That's always made a great deal of sense to me.  But I recognise it's far more complex than that.  Some of the best writers are the worst spellers, and vice-versa.  Community attitudes to spelling have also changed significantly since my school days.  Some may think any relaxation of these standards is a retrograde step, but it is what it is.  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  02:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You lucky, lucky bastard! μηδείς (talk) 04:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Strangely enough, I never mistake than and then. But I almost always mistype there/their/they're, so much so I recently gave an edit summary when correcting such a mistake saying that "I will die never having mastered this".  In private correspondence I have simply given up on your/you're, and write "yr" instead.  Keep in mind that then and than are like of and off and an and one, two forms of the same word which have become differentiated in English due to thr typical stress.  They are both cognates see EO. μηδείς (talk) 04:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If you want to help people suffering from their/they're/there confusion, try these pointers: Their ends the same as heir - both are about people, so have the same ending. The "-ere" ending is about place, and the memory trick I use is the Beatles song "Here, There and Everywhere". That leaves they're, and the apostrophe is replacing the "a" of they are. The one thing I wish people would stop doing in the UK at least is replacing "have" with "of". They think that the contracted ending "-ve" is actually "of" instead of a shortened "have". So you get people saying "I could of" instead of "I could have". Drives me nuts. From an ex-basic literacy teacher. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I want to tell you; it's only me, it's not my mind that is confusing things. μηδείς (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In the old days, we English spellers use to use whatever seemed goode. Ah, for daes goon bye.Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I wonder how long the words there, they're and their have been homophones. In the Lancashire dialect, which retains a lot of archaic pronunciation features, each is still pronounced differently (there, they-er and thee-er). So some kind of change may eventually happen. - filelake shoe  &#xF0F6;   10:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Legally, in Britain, only since 1967. μηδείς (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I asked a similar question two years ago. As a non-native speaker of English, I cannot understand how native speakers confuse such distinct words. I have never written than instead of then, they're instead of their or there, it's instead of its, etc. I was given several explanations which did make sense, but I still fail to see how such things aren't as painfully obvious to a native speaker as they are to me, a person who only started learning English at the age of nine (and immediately grasped the differences between such words). Perhaps it's got something to do with the fact that those words are spelled very differently in my native language (e.g. than=nego, then=tada; their=njihovo, there=tamo, they're=oni su). There are stranger things in the world, though; things I'd describe as green and red might be described as being of the same colour by other visually unimpaired people. Surtsicna (talk) 11:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have trouble differentiating between them either, even though in my native language then and than can be translated with the same word ('dan'). It may have to do with the fact that I often read English but rarely speak it. - Lindert (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have seen non-native speakers write it's instead of its. This is especially understandable since they know 's to denote possession, and in this case it doesn't. But yes, native speakers of a language just write what they hear in their head, whereas non-native speakers may have learned to write the words before they speak them, and actively know the grammar. That is why native and non-native speakers make different mistakes. - filelake shoe  &#xF0F6;   12:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The confusion of native speakers is likely because they learn these words as spoken sounds before they are even aware that there is such a thing as writing, while second language speakers both (1) learn the spelling with or even prior to mastering the pronunciation, and (2) as mentioned above, map the words onto their own non-homophonous native vocabulary. It's curious whether such spelling errors are common with homophonous grammatical words in other languages, such as c'est and ses and ces in French.  I know from dealing with working class Hispanics in NY that you simply cannot expect actual spelling by real individuals to match literate school-taught spelling.  To exaggerate an example, but not by too much, since b/v, c/z/s ll/y and qu/c are homophones, you can expect to get a note from your superintendent under the door that says Boi la proxima cemana de baquasiones.  Cuando alla problema, yame a la ofisina.  That is almost incomprehensible, until you simply read it out loud phonetically, and then it makes perfect sense.  ("I am going on vacation next week, if there's a problem call the office.")  Very similar to the pre-William Caxton Ynglishe spelling Alan mentions above, and perfectly suitable phonetically. μηδείς (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I used to speak French to people online and they would make shortcuts on things like "c'est", often replacing it with "cest" or "ces". French is only the other language I've ever seen which reduces words using numbers too, e.g. "aujourd8" or "quoi de 9?". I believe the internet and phones have a lot to say for the reduction of "they're" to "there", when I was at primary school we got drilled to death over there vs. their, but use of "they're" was clearer to us. - filelake shoe  &#xF0F6;   18:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Presumably many languages don't do it because their numbers aren't homophones or common morphemes. I can't see it being done in Russian at all (maybe with 3), and in German, what would we get?  Albert 1st1, or the Wehrm8 and 8dulieber! ? μηδείς (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Informal Italian uses 6 in locutions like 6 un mito (literally "you are a myth", but more understandable as "you are a legend"). --Trovatore (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And Dutch uses w8 for 'wacht' (just like in English), suc6 for 'succes' etc. - Lindert (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "N8" is a common valediction in on-line German, in my experience. Tevildo (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * French shortens things even further than that, usually in Internet-speak "c'est" becomes simply "c". Among other things, I've also seen "t1" for "t'es un" (which is already short for "tu es un"). Adam Bishop (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think affect and effect are the worst. I often want to write "affect/effect". Bus stop (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you could effect an effect that would affect your affect. --Trovatore (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That is funny. Bus stop (talk) 04:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My pet peeve is when people write "to" when they mean "too". Try making sense of this: "Wun-Wun was a racehorse, Tutu was one to; Wun-Wun won one race, Tutu won one to".  --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  07:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Who's on First? Bus stop (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)