solecisms

We also fix typos and solecisms in titles, even if they occur in the original.

Anyone who watches HN as closely as you do ought to know that we routinely fix typos and solecisms.

But, carried into the modern era I am pretty sure historians would mutter about the many solecisms.

However, we judge them by what they have to say and how they express it[2], not by their accents or minor solecisms.

Yes, I know that plenty of our words today evolved out of mistakes, solecisms, misspellings, etc.

If I were interviewing this person for a job I'd be very put off by the tone, the solecisms, and the lack of clarity.

I did this, with word* and with the first spreadsheets (my god, just use a pen and paper, or expr or BC) and other solecisms.

One of these days I intend to write a short piece of fiction in which all the usual solecisms occur but are, in context, perfectly correct.

> Yes, I know that plenty of our words today evolved out of mistakes, solecisms, misspellings, etc.

In either case I admit I find it very bewildering to reconcile your well written comment with the solecisms and illiteracies that post was littered with*, or to make sense of your coming here to read and grow upset at criticism of a post which – given your now-evident possession of a brain stem – you must surely have known was atrociously written.

I read that to overcome the same structural behaviours in the Astrophysics community, some senior astronomers took to asking questions for PhDs because they weren't getting traction, and I have also read that Nils Bohr and others used to commit deliberate solecisms in workshops, to remind people anyone can make mistakes and encourage junior staff to speak out and correct them.

The Economist claims this is a guide to "common solecisms." I wonder if their claim to solecisms is a solecism itself?

Anyway, given the other solecisms out there, it will be a long road to hoe to stamp out "towing."