"To wit: It is too bad that there are more than two."
I am not sure why people have a hard time with this one. I mean, there are three words with a combined total of eight letters! How hard could it be? Given the number of people who struggle with this one, it is plenty hard, apparently. However, I believe that if a person concentrates on the difference between the three homophones for just a week, then they will have it down for life. Here's how it works:
TWO - The number. Always. Only.
TOO - Means "also" and "in addition," or may indicate an amount.
TO - All other uses
When I notice this mistake, I usually pity the user. Even in a casual setting, like a social network, this misuse should not be made. I make exceptions if I know they are using a phone with auto-correct, but I see this mistake over and over on blogs, in emails and in general use. I also happen to notice when they are used properly, as this indicates that I am dealing with someone who pays attention to detail. That is certainly handy to know about people sometimes.
loose/lose
"I don't want to lose my loose britches."
I am worried about this word combo. As I watch the morphing of language in today's electronic society, the loose/lose combination looks like it might fall through the cracks. I am concerned that due to such abundant misuse, the incorrect use will replace the correct use, and vise versa. I see the term "looser" used so often to describe what is meant to be a "loser" that I believe that an entire generation will think it is the proper spelling. Only time will prove or disprove this hypothesis. For those who care about this potential transmongrafication, here is a rule to help keep it straight:
An extra "O" makes the word LOOSER
You LOSE an "O"
there/their/they're
"They're always asking their parents if they are there yet."
THEY'RE - "They are." Always. Only.
THEIR - Possession, like "heir to the throne"
THERE - "Here" or "there," and all other uses
'Nuff said.
definitely/defiantly
"I defiantly said that I definitely disagree."
This is a blatant case of a person relying too much on spell check. When I notice these types of spelling mistakes, I know I should then expect to see many of the other types of mistakes mentioned in this article. The only thing that makes this one a pet peeve to me is that a quick scan will tell you that there is definitely no "A" in 'definitely.' Such an easy catch, but unfortunately, so often missed.
peaked/piqued/peeked
"If your interest is piqued, and you peeked at your gift, your eyebrows might be peaked."
Some people play crossword puzzles. Others play word search games. I play the "peeked-peaked-piqued" game. I have found that in most cases the wrong word is used. It is a pretty fun game to play, actually. I usually feel pretty smug when I find one, I have to admit. I feel more refined, as if the crude barbarian dare to attempt to join the upper echelon of precise language usage. Of course, I am only fooling myself. Before long, the phrase will probably morph into "peaked," and I will be an anachronism in yet another way. Until then, however, I intend to smile an egotistical pursing of the lips and imbibe in a knowing raise of the eyebrows every time I spot it.
who's/whose
"Who's to tell me whose line it is, anyway?"
WHO'S - "Who is." Always. Only.
WHOSE - All other uses
'Nuff said.
accept/except
"I would accept it, except it is incorrect."
To hear these two words, they are nearly identical, but to write them is another story. There is no way to confuse these two words visually, but people routinely do just that. I can understand how they can be confusing, since there is not as simple a way to differentiate them as there are with other homophones. If you can accept that accept means to receive, then you can know that the other spelling means "but." That's all I have for that one.
that/who
"Who is the man in that car?"
This one is a bit obscure to those who do not edit. While understandable, it nonetheless still irks my liver. Except in rare circumstances, a person, a being, someone with a soul should not be referred to as an object, a "that," a "what" or an "it." Nor should a thing, an inanimate object, a non-person ever be referred to as a "who." Pretty straightforward, I think.
Well, they're you go. I didn't want this article to get two long. That is a great way to loose readers! Hopefully I defiantly peaked your interest, and now you know who's blog to check if you need any clarification on these particular pet peeves. I hope you except these rules as coming from a person that knows there stuff!
 |  |  |  |  | |
On Facebook
@wilsonstephenl