Gist not Jest

I didn't even know that was a "thing" (meaning a common misconception) until I read it online a few times. Like "than" instead of "then". Apparently people mix those up a lot (seems clear to me).

One that really bugs me is "for all intensive purposes". I worked with a woman who used to write that and had no idea it was wrong. It doesn't even make sense. It's "for all intents and purposes".

And here was me thinking they were making an amusing pun.

jest

What you see online is only a reflection of the general illiteracy of the public at large. So many people are online that the majority are going to be functionally illiterate. That's just how it is.

As writers, all we can really do is get it right ourselves. There's no way on earth to make everyone else get it right.

Jamesaritchie said:

As writers, all we can really do is get it right ourselves. There's no way on earth to make everyone else get it right.

Click to expand...

That fact has frustrated me since early childhood.

Another thing I oftensee misused: the use of "literally".
So often I've heard people say things like; "She was quite literally bouncing off the walls," when in fact they mean figuratively.
"Literally" would mean she really was a ball bouncing around the room.

That's just used for emphasis, though. It doesn't really make sense, but to say that someone was bouncing off the walls, you automatically take it figuratively -- if you say someone was literally bouncing of the walls, however, the implication is that they weren't ACTUALLY bouncing off the walls, but that they were more than just, say, your average dose of hyper.

trumancoyote said:

That's just used for emphasis, though. It doesn't really make sense, but to say that someone was bouncing off the walls, you automatically take it figuratively -- if you say someone was literally bouncing of the walls, however, the implication is that they weren't ACTUALLY bouncing off the walls, but that they were more than just, say, your average dose of hyper.

Click to expand...

Yes, the implication is there, but I know they weren't doing it literally - so why add "literally"? I've often heard people say something they mean figuratively, and then they add, for emphasis, "Literally!" It doesn't make sense...

A blog on the (ab)use of literally:
http://literally.barelyfitz.com/

Many people do use "literally" too liberally. "She literally died" doesn't make sense unless she really died. I think people confuse "literally" with a simple "really" or "nearly."

Another word that a lot of people misuse is "jell" as in "Mark and Josh don't jell." Many people write "they don't gel" or, worse, "they don't gell." "Gel" simply doesn't make sense.

And it's "pique" not "peek" or "peak" or "pick."

And, it's "run amok" not "run amuck" (what's that, running about covered in mud?).

Crap, I spelled it jist. I know it's not jest, but... dummy.

Thanks.

Speaking of moot points

And a moot point is one that can be debated but need not be, because the decision has been made.

reph said:

And a moot point is one that can be debated but need not be, because the decision has been made.

Click to expand...

Or, as Joey says, it's like a cow's opinion. It's a moo point.

rekirts said:

It's because they use cases that have already been decided, but they can still argue the points for practise.

Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. "Moot" in general use came from legal uses of this kind.