A non-native English speaker on this site recently said: ... I thank him for the explanation. The english language is strange and fascinating for a non-native speaker, and ... I like people to help us improve our english. Many of us are making an effort to communicate in an alien language, and any help is appreciated.
In light of that, I'll go ahead with what I've wanted to do for a while, but thought too many would take offense. (I was especially encouraged when I found a similar list on the front page of netscape.com.)
Apostrophe for plural
NEVER CONSTRUCT A PLURAL FORM WITH AN APOSTROPHE.
This seems to be a side-effect of the information age where everything is compressed into acronyms and also of the Internet age where everything tends to be lowercase. If you feel the need to use an apostrophe to separate an "s" from the word you want to pluralize, then you probably need to reword your sentence.
For example, "There are too many CCG's on the market," or "The player with the most VP's wins." In these cases, just get rid of the apostrophe! Obviously, it's more difficult to read as "ccgs", and the solution there is to capitalize the acronym. (Acronyms *should* be capitalized, by the way.)
Then for than
WHEN YOU'RE COMPARING, USE THAN.
No: He scored more points in the GDS then me.
Yes: He scored more points in the GDS than I did.
Loose for lose
LOOSE IS THE OPPOSITE OF TIGHT.
LOSE IS THE OPPOSITE OF WIN OR FIND.
No: I always loose at that game.
No: I've always loosed at that game when I've played before.
Yes: I always lose at that game.
Yes: I've always lost at that game when I've played before.
Your for you're
YOUR IS POSSESSIVE.
YOU'RE IS A CONTRACTION OF "YOU ARE".
No: He captured you're flag.
Yes: He captured your flag.
No: Your right about the rule changes.
Yes: You're right about the rule changes.
"Try and" for "try to"
IT'S ALWAYS "TRY TO".
You never try AND do something. You always try TO do something. Using "and" separates the try from the thing being tried and makes them distinct actions. For example, "I'm going to try and reformat my rulebook tomorrow." That sentence says you're going to DO two things; it does not say that you're going to TRY DOING one thing. In the example, the two things are "try" (although we're not told what) and "reformat my rulebook tomorrow."
"...it's at."
WHO NEEDS IT? DITCH THE "AT."
I recently saw a post that said something like "I don't know where it's at at the moment." Ugh. The phrase "where it's at" is an anomaly of modern English because it actually *increases* the word count. It's better to say, "where it is," or instead of "where are you at" say "where are you?"
Modern English speakers are so lazy, they can't help but make contractions even when they're not necessary. (I guess strictly speaking they're never necessary, but whatever.) When the result sounds too awkward to bear, they add an extra and useless "at" to the end.
"where it is" => "where it's" => "where it's at"
"where are you" => "where're you" => "where're you at"
And speaking of "where're", it's supposed to be used when speaking of plural items, but the modern, lazy speaker seems to resist using it. (I have a work mate who is so accustomed to hearing and saying it incorrectly, he claims the 's form actually sounds better. To me, hearing it makes my skin crawl.)
Compare:
"Where is the pawn?" => "Where's the pawn?"
"Where are the pawns?" => "Where're the pawns?"
I suspect that most modern, lazy speakers will say
"Where's the pawns?" or "Where's the cards?" which is incorrect.
Some random items from netscape's list:
#2: It's for its (or heaven forbid, its')
its is possessive: Its effect is permanent.
it's is a contraction: It's (it is) a nice day for some RoboRally.
its' is not a word.
#3: They're for their for there
their is possessive: Their scores average in the 60s.
they're is a contraction: They're (they are) talking about Puerto Rico.
"there" is rarely misused.
#4: i.e. for e.g.
i.e. = "In other words,"
e.g. = "For example,"
#10: Could of, would of for could have, would have
IT'S ALWAYS "could have" or "would have" (could've or would've).
I think a lot of errors are caused by assuming someone else is correct when they aren't.