they are one in [sic] the same vs. they are one and the same
tow the line vs. toe the line
in mass when the writer means en masse
begs the question does NOT mean “asks for the question” (arrrgghhh!) it refers to the logical fallacy of petitio principii.
chomp at the bit vs. champ at the bit
confusing enervate (rob of energy) with innervate (infuse with energy, stimulate)
using “the exception proves the rule” as an argument that where a rule fails it validates the rule (silly). “Prove” in this context means “test”.
[spoken] forte pronounced as “for-tay”. The “e” is silent in “forte” when used to mean “strength” as in “Logical argument is his forte.” I'll let native English speakers say "for-tay" when they're talking about "loudness" in a musical phrase, if they wish, because there it's from Italian, not French, as above.
hale and farewell vs. hail and farewell (“hale” means “healthy” for those who insist it's the correct word in the phrase. “Hail” means “Hello.” So there. Military folks do NOT write this wrongly more than one time...)
“if I was”—has no one even heard of subjunctive construction? “If I were” please.
upmost vs. utmost
“wet” when “whet” is meant
confusing affect (usually a verb meaning to influence; when a noun, overt signs of an emotional state) and effect (usually a noun meaning a result; when a verb, cause to happen NOT influence).
than (comparison) vs then (when)
there (place), their (possessive pronoun), they're (contraction meaning “they are”)
it's and your's used as possessives, when its and yours are correct (“your's” is nonsense).
Heck, there are tons of misused apostrophes—a punctuation mark frequently misused in creating plurals, for heaven's sake. *sigh*
to, too, two: these should be obvious
your vs you're—oh, heavens. *sigh* “Your” is a possessive pronoun. “You're” is the equivalent of “you are.”
“All woks of life”—nah. Too easy.
write to choose—really? (Writer meant "right to choose".)
copywrite used when copyright is meant.
A biggie: imply vs. infer. A speaker may imply. A hearer may infer. They are two very different processes. Most errors of argument seem to occur when a hearer infers (or pretends to) something not said and then erromeously (or disingenuously) implies (or outright states) that what they inferred is what was said... BTW, that's also known as a non causa pro causa fallacy of argument. A common use is in straw man arguments: arguing against something not proposed or said.
