odeevil

#1: All intensive purposes
No: For all intensive purposes, this project has concluded.

Yes: For all intents and purposes, this project has concluded.

Note: I had a hard time believing this one is actually loose in the wild and not just cited anecdotally, but I’ve received verification from colleagues that it’s fairly common.

#2: Comprise
No: The company is comprised of talented developers.

Yes: The company comprises talented developers.

No: Seven people comprised the project team.

Yes: The project team comprised seven people.

Note: Used correctly, comprise sometimes sounds weird, or stuffy, or both. There’s no harm in using different phrasing, such as consists of.

#3: Heighth
No: The heighth of the case prevented us from putting the PC under the desk.

Yes: The height of the case prevented us from putting the PC under the desk.

Note: Unlike width and length, height doesn’t end in th. But about one in five people apparently thinkth it does.

#4: Supposably
No: The application supposably blocks the installation of spyware.

Yes: The application supposedly blocks the installation of spyware.

Note: You’ll hear this one a lot, but supposably is not a word. At least not yet.

#5: Irregardless
No: Employees should come to work irregardless of the server problems.

Yes: Employees should come to work regardless of the server problems.

Note: Irregardless isn’t a word either, although it’s commonly treated as one. Maybe with legitimate words like irrelevant and irrepressible crowding the field, the temptation to ir is overwhelming. But it might just be a case of adding a syllable to sound smarter.

#6: Infer/imply
No: When you tell me, “Your management style needs some work,” are you inferring that I’m a lousy boss?

Yes: When you tell me, “Your management style needs some work,” are you implying that I’m a lousy boss?

Note: This is hard to illustrate, because it’s all about context. But the rule is this: If you’re suggesting something, you’re implying it. If you’re interpreting what someone else is telling you, you’re inferring something from what they say. It’s like pitch and catch.

#7: Momento
No: Bring me back some momento from the conference.

Yes: Bring me back some memento from the conference.

Note: Momento is Spanish (and Italian and Portuguese) for moment; it’s not a word in English. If memento gives you trouble, you can always default to souvenir (which, ironically, wasn’t an English word either, but it is now).

#8: Anticlimatic
No: The last episode of The Sopranos was a little anticlimatic.

Yes: The last episode of The Sopranos was a little anticlimactic.

Note: Anticlimactic derives from anticlimax — a letdown. I can’t tell you why it’s not anticlimaxtic. At any rate, it’s never anticlimatic — that’s often said, but it’s not a word. If it were, it would mean against climate. Not really a stand worth taking.

#9: Tenant/tenet
No: The policies committee has presented a list of ethical tenants for employees to follow.

Yes: The policies committee has presented a list of ethical tenets for employees to follow.

Note: Tenets are principles (not principals) or belief systems. Tenants are occupants.

#10: Moot/mute
No: You’ve been late every day for three years; yesterday’s flat tire is a mute point.

Yes: You’ve been late every day for three years; yesterday’s flat tire is a moot point.

Note: Different words altogether; different etymology, different meaning. But enticingly similar enough to fool the unwary. There’s a fair amount of controversy over the correct usage of moot, although moot point is generally taken to mean abstract or irrelevant to this discussion. In that context (or any other I can think of), it’s definitely not mute.

Bonus blunder
I was raised to believe that unique meant one of a kind and that only the most clueless moron would ever qualify it. Hearing someone say somewhat unique or very unique would elevate my smugness to near-toxic levels. Now the rules have changed. Unique can sometimes construe unusual, so it can be qualified out the wazoo. But if you actually do use it to describe something that’s one of a kind, remember that it would sound a little goofy to say it’s somewhat one of a kind. It is or it ain’t.

On a personal note I can not stand the use of "incomprehendable." That word does not exist. I can see why people do it. One is able to comprehend something so surely something could be incomprehendable. Unfortunately if something is impossible to understand, it is actually incomprehensible. Don't ask me why but I have heard literally dozens of people use this.

So comment with your favorite/most annoying gramar mistakes! I realise that some people here have different first languages, are any of these things similar problems in your language?