Grammar and Mechanics: Pet Peeves
The misuse of the written homophones such as their, there and they’re, or your and you’re is always something which makes me wince. Other examples might be the difference between affect and effect, or the confusions between of and have in sentences such as could of versus could have, should of versus should have, or would of versus would have. The most common one I find in written form is the confusion between their and they’re, as in it was they’re fault. The web doesn’t really turn up much criticism or refutation of the rule outside of the annoyance of those who correct others, and tends to be more focused on helping others understand the differences between what we hear and what we write, even if they sound the same.
Inspired by Taylor, but also the ‘Englishes’ of Professor Crystal, I will also share a bonus rule. I’m a British immigrant, and even though I’ve lived in America for over twenty years, I still have to pause on the use of the letter u, or more specifically its removal, in words such as colorful, flavor, humor or neighbor. Or the change in order between words ending in -er versus -re. Such as meter, center or theater. Or the use of z instead of s in words such as organize, realize or authorize. I don’t find this trips me up when I’m reading, but often still have to translate this as I’m writing.
