"etc" or "ect"?

[STiFU]

We all know the acronym for "et cetera", which is latin for "and so forth". In Germany, people use the acronym "etc." or "usw." for "und so weiter" , but on this and other multinational forums I see the t and c flipped very frequently to "ect". At first I thought it was just a typo, but since I have seen it so often by now I am starting to wonder whether the acronym is really spelled differently in english or other languages and more important: Why do you do that? Not that correct spelling is actually important to me, but I figured this is fairly good off-topic talk!

 

Edit: According to this.. (german) page, the acronym is the same everywhere, besides maybe languages that don't use our typeface. Well, I can't read it. Browsing that page for "ect" didn't present any answers either. Is it maybe really just prevalent typo?

Edited February 23, 2008 by STiFU

[Tels]

We all know the acronym for "et cetera", which is latin for "and so forth". In Germany, people use the acronym "etc." or "usw." for "und so weiter" , but on this and other multinational forums I see the t and c flipped very frequently to "ect". At first I thought it was just a typo, but since I have seen it so often by now I am starting to wonder whether the acronym is really spelled differently in english or other languages and more important: Why do you do that? Not that correct spelling is actually important to me, but I figured this is fairly good off-topic talk!

 

Edit: According to this. (german) page, the acronym is the same everywhere, besides maybe languages that don't use our typeface. Well, I can't read it. Browsing that page for "ect" didn't present any answers either. Is it maybe really just prevalent typo?

 

The link you posted goes to the "this page does not exist" page on wikipedia

 

Strangely, neither "etc" nor "et cetera" are present in the German wikipedia. The english one has:

 

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/et_cetera

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Et_cetera

 

And it doesn't mention "ect" at all, so I think this is just a typo from people who don't know better.

 

Edit: Wikipedia even says:

 

'A common misspelling of the abbreviation is "ect."; a common mispronunciation is "ex cetera," and another common misspelling is "et cetra."'

[oDDity]

It's always etc in English.

[Vadrosaul]

One I keep seeing is 'loose' being used in place of 'lose'.

[STiFU]

Thanks for clarifying!

 

There was a dot missing on the link and I fixed it. Copy paste must've eaten it... But I do that "loose" typo very often too, but in most of the cases I realize my failure.

 

Edit: Well aparently you cannot fix it, because the forum always places the dot after the link tags. Just go ahead and add the dot on the URL!

Edited February 23, 2008 by STiFU

[oDDity]

I keep seeing people using 'women' in stead of 'women' which always annoys me. I mean, the first one is clearly the plural, how dumb can you get.

Just goes to show the arbitrary mish-mash of bastardy that is the English language.

[OrbWeaver]

"your" instead of "you're".

"loose" instead of "lose".

"effected" instead of "affected".

"there" instead of "their".

 

All mispellings so common that sometimes when I write the words correctly I do a double-take to make sure I've got it right, because the result looks so unfamiliar. I think this is the inevitably disastrous consequence of the rise of Internet and text messaging, whereby people who can barely speak English are forced to make an attempt at writing it.

[STiFU]

uhhh yeah, I hate that last one!! And the worst thing is people who are not capable of speaking proper english trying to hide it behind the massive use of slang expressions. I don't mind if someone can't speak or write english very well, but wrong "slangtalk" is just a pain in the ass!!

Edited February 23, 2008 by STiFU

[Baddcog]

there their,

 

I will stop using ect... which I think I do, I'd have to check. Guess I never realized I was doin' it.

[oDDity]

One quite subtle mistake which most people never pick and is used all the time is 'there's going to be 3 of them'

 

See who can spot the mistake there. It's obvious when you know you're looking for a mistake, but no one ever picks it up in reality.

Regardless, you know what's being said.

It actlly amzng jst hw bdly wrds cn b speld and stl b udrstndbl.

You really only need the consonants, and the context takes care of the rest..

I'm not sure why people are allowed to speak in various accents and slangs, you don't get any announcer on TV or radio these days who doesn't have a strong regional accent, but everyone is expected to write in a centrally controlled, uniform way.

[STiFU]

there their,

 

I will stop using ect... which I think I do, I'd have to check. Guess I never realized I was doin' it.

Yeah well, you were actually the kick-off! But nevermind. Again, I was just wondering, whether there was an alternative acronym.

 

And Odd, I think there are two mistakes in that sentence. Numbers below twelve have to or should be written out in letters (at least in germany) and the other thing whould be the plural of "to be" I guess.

Edited February 23, 2008 by STiFU

[Nyarlathotep]

Nobody gives a shit if you use a numeral or not, these days.

 

How about "its" (the possessive) and "it's" (the contraction)? Almost nobody gets that one right.

 

"your" instead of "you're".

"loose" instead of "lose".

"effected" instead of "affected".

"there" instead of "their".

Also "they're". What really bugs is that they're not even pronounced the same! Similar? Very, but not the same.

[phide]

Numbers below twelve have to or should be written out in letters (at least in germany)

That's proper for Oxford-worshiping, pencil-in-sleeve-pocket American English as well, but not necessarily required for informal situations (such as these extremely informal forums). To be 'ULTRA PROPER', one might even consider writing out a number such as 523. Crazy, crazy!

 

Now, any individual caught having confused 'loose' and 'lose' should be labeled a dunce for all eternity. That's just plain deplorable.

[oDDity]

The subtle, but common mistake I was referring to was the contraction 'there's'.

'There's (there is) going to be 3' can be used in certain contexts, such as confirmation, but people generally write 'there's (there is) going to be 3' when the correct grammar should be 'there are going to be 3'.

'There is' and 'there are' are not always interchangeable (unless you're a black character from a 1920's movie set in the American deep south )but since there is no contraction for 'there are', people get lazy.

[Ishtvan]

Let's not forget our friends "its" and "it's." Apostrophe abuse in general seems to be running rampant these days.

[Nyarlathotep]

Some people seem to follow the "Look out, here comes an 's' " school of apostrophes. For example, "I really like apostrophe's. I know everyone think's I look smarter when I liberally sprinkle apostrophe's in my writing's!" That hurt to write.

 

Also, reading comprehension is at an all-time low in today's society:

 

How about "its" (the possessive) and "it's" (the contraction)? Almost nobody gets that one right.

[Tels]

Nobody gives a shit if you use a numeral or not, these days.

 

u r 2 smrt 4 me!

 

k thx, g2g cu l8r.

[oDDity]

The only people worse that people who make these mistakes, are grammar nazis like yourselves of course.

How a spoken language gets written down is entirely arbitrary, and only about 200 of the 6000 languages in the world even have a written form, yet we're all expected to stick to whatever (quite often illogical and unintuitive) method of writing that's been handed to us, which is largely because the spoken word changes far more rapidly than the written word.

[slavatrumpevitch]

and accept instead of except

[Domarius]

And it doesn't mention "ect" at all, so I think this is just a typo from people who don't know better.

The moral of this story is; when in doubt, assume people are idiots

[sparhawk]

I keep seeing people using 'women' in stead of 'women' which always annoys me. I mean, the first one is clearly the plural, how dumb can you get.

 

I keep seeing people typing "in stead" instead of "instead". Don't know, is this a correct spelling or just a typo?

[Tels]

I keep seeing people using 'women' in stead of 'women' which always annoys me. I mean, the first one is clearly the plural, how dumb can you get.

 

I keep seeing people typing "in stead" instead of "instead". Don't know, is this a correct spelling or just a typo?

 

Funny, I see people typing women when they in fact mean women.

 

SCRN

[Nyarlathotep]

I keep seeing people typing "in stead" instead of "instead". Don't know, is this a correct spelling or just a typo?

"In stead" is actually one of two mistakes: either it's a typo of "instead", or they're missing an identifier, such as a possessive, e.g., "in your stead." Note that the latter form (stead as it's own word) is quickly becoming archaic.

 

When I think about it, I'm pretty sure "instead" arose from "in stead," but that it is definitely an archaic form. Unless the text is very old or intended to appear very old ("ye olde English"), it's simply a mistake.

[Baddcog]

Well I'm glad my little fubar started up such an intriguing conversation, accept I wonder why it matters, ect....

[Nyarlathotep]

*Sound of head exploding*