Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A malapropism (/ ˈ m æ l ə p r ɒ p ɪ z əm /; also called a malaprop, acyrologia or Dogberryism) is the incorrect use of a word in place of a word with a similar sound, either unintentionally or for comedic effect, resulting in a nonsensical, often humorous utterance.
Likewise, if you are coming to another editor's defense, focus on whatever the accusation was. This is the best way to resolve the dispute promptly and fairly. The wrong way to respond to such situations is to disregard the accusation, and focus instead on things that the accuser has done.
This can be achieved with intentional malapropism (e.g. replacing erection for election), enallage (giving a sentence the wrong form, eg. "we was robbed!"), or simply replacing a letter with another letter (for example, in English, k replacing c), or symbol ($ replacing s).
See List of English words with disputed usage for words that are used in ways that are deprecated by some usage writers but are condoned by some dictionaries. There may be regional variations in grammar, orthography, and word-use, especially between different English-speaking countries.
In rhetoric and ethics, "two wrongs don't make a right" and "two wrongs make a right" are phrases that denote philosophical norms. "Two wrongs make a right" has been considered as a fallacy of relevance, in which an allegation of wrongdoing is countered with a similar allegation.
For example, when you use the word “not,” the structure “not A or B” is correct. You’d have to say, “He is not interested in math or science”; “He is not interested in math nor science” won’t work. Likewise, “She didn’t speak slowly or clearly” has a better ring to it than “She didn’t speak slowly nor clearly.”
To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying disregard for evidence. Similarly, be judicious in using admit, confess, reveal , and deny , particularly for living persons , because these verbs can inappropriately imply culpability .
A variant on misciting WP:STICKTOSOURCES is to claim "Wikipedia should follow, not lead", which likewise is core policy on facts and viewpoints but not on word choice. Rather than having the solidity of established consensus policy, this belief about the language in our articles is a personal expression of conservative wishful thinking and no more.