View Single Post
Old 12-02-2022, 12:11 AM   #838
DNSB
Bibliophagist
DNSB ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DNSB ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DNSB ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DNSB ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DNSB ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DNSB ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DNSB ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DNSB ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DNSB ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DNSB ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.DNSB ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
DNSB's Avatar
 
Posts: 46,921
Karma: 169810634
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Device: Kobo Sage, Libra Colour, Lenovo M8 FHD, Paperwhite 4, Tolino epos
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Robin View Post
I'm sure I've mentioned this one before, but it's beginning to irk me - which is a real achievement as I tend to be very laissez-faire about such 'errors'. But someithng about the increasingly widespread use of "discrete" for "discreet" really pushes my buttons
On several occasions. See message #533 in this thread where you wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Robin View Post
The one that surprises me with its frequency is "discrete" for "discreet". "Loose" for "lose" is widely looked down, yet even authors (and their editors) who display far too much wordcraft to make that error, still fail to separate the other two.
I seem to remember your complaining about discrete vs. discreet on several other occasions. I just classify that word pair as yet another issue with homonyms that many authors have issues with.

Last edited by DNSB; 12-02-2022 at 12:13 AM.
DNSB is offline   Reply With Quote