Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A aggravate – Some have argued that this word should not be used in the sense of "to annoy" or "to oppress", but only to mean "to make worse". According to AHDI, the use of "aggravate" as "annoy" occurs in English as far back as the 17th century. In Latin, from which the word was borrowed, both meanings were used. Sixty-eight percent of AHD4's usage panel approves of its use in "It's the ...
eponymous is used to describe something that gives its name to something else, not something that receives the name of something else. [dubious – discuss] Standard: Frank, the eponymous owner of Frank's Bistro, prepares all meals in a spotless kitchen. Non-standard: Frank maintains an eponymous restaurant, Frank's Bistro. ethic and ethnic.
with the meaning of physician. The former is still used today. lich corpse lich liss relief liss reave: rob reave Today found mostly in "Reaver", meaning robber or highwayman. rime: number rime ruth pity ruth Usage persists to a greater degree in "Ruthless" and to a lesser degree "Ruthful". arm, wantsome poor arm, wantsome armth: poverty armth ...
A mondegreen (/ ˈ m ɒ n d ɪ ˌ ɡ r iː n / ⓘ) is a mishearing or misinterpretation of a phrase in a way that gives it a new meaning. [1] Mondegreens are most often created by a person listening to a poem or a song; the listener, being unable to hear a lyric clearly, substitutes words that sound similar and make some kind of sense.
The following list, of about 350 words, is based on documented lists [4] [10] of the top 100, 200, or 400 [3] most commonly misspelled words in all variants of the English language, rather than listing every conceivable misspelled word.
Other expressions are: не бачити тобі ... як своїх вух ("you'll never see [something] like you will never see your ears"); на кінський Великдень ("on horse's Easter"; побачиш як власну потилицю ("you'll see it like your own nape").
If Editor 1 claims that Editor 2 did something wrong, ask whether the information at hand indicates that Editor 2 did, in fact, do something wrong. If the answer is no, then look at Editor 1's role. If it looks like neither of them really did anything wrong, then the complaint should probably be closed with no action. But if it looks like ...
The whataboutery move seems to rest on the false assumption that wrongdoing is mitigated if others have done something similar, and the feeling that accusers need to be innocent of the crime of which they are accusing others. 'You think I'm doing something terrible, so look around you at all the others doing much the same as me.