If you read anything on the internet, you will see an endless supply of spelling mistakes that may be merely humorous; or they may show that the writer was careless or unaware; or they may have arisen in a situation when the writer/publisher misspelled a word in such as way as to create a different word, with a different meaning. Of course (sadly), the writer may not actually know which word will convey their intended meaning.
Borrowing from the never-ending online supply, here are a few more of the spelling (or diction, i.e., word choice) errors I have noticed recently:
She probably set the date before her sister in law got pregnant, and can't change it without inuring huge fines from the venue.
To inure means to toughen, accustom or habituate, and with these meanings it is a transitive verb - one that takes an object. So, one could accurately say: "The strict policies of the wedding venue inured all the users to the unpleasant likelihood of paying a fine."
Inure can also mean to take effect or to become advantageous; in this sense, it is an intransitive verb - one that does not take an object. For this meaning, one might say: "The steep fines inure to the benefit of the wedding venue, but they inure to the detriment of the wedding couple who had to change the date of their nuptials."
I believe the writer meant to use the verb incur, which means "to bring upon oneself." You might incur a fine for exceeding the speed limit; you might incur a fine for underpaying your taxes; you might incur the wrath of your spouse or partner for arriving late to the dinner party. Doesn't it make more sense in this example to say, "She probably...can't change [the date] without 'bringing upon herself' huge fines" than it does to say "She probably...can't change [the date] without 'accustoming' huge fines"? [Accustoming the fines to what? to the unpleasant necessity of being billed and dunned?]
If one chooses to tow the party line - If a person is towing a line, they are pulling it or tugging it, as in the picnic game of tug-of-war. In that game, the players on two teams stand in two lines opposite each other, with everyone on the team holding onto a long rope; and at the signal, both teams tow on the rope or line as hard as they can, to try to pull the other team across a marked boundary. Humans might also tow (haul) a line when pulling a barge on a river or a canal.
On the other hand, the expression "to toe the line" started out meaning "to line up with your toes against the line," as at the start of a footrace. If players are to remain eligible, they are not allowed to let even the tip of one toe move across the starting line. They have to keep every toe on or behind the line. And so, "to toe the line" - whether in politics or in any other endeavor - means to conform strictly and rigidly to expectations and rules. "To toe the party line" means to follow exactly what the (political) party tells you to do, even if your own principles or the wishes of your constituents diverge from that.
Funnily enough, someone could make a case to say that it makes sense to "tow the party line" if a candidate or elected official is working voluntarily in conjunction with others in the party to reach a common goal. But if their actions are dictated by going along with the party's wishes, no matter what, even against their own better judgment, then they are said to "toe the party line."
The learning curb is a little slow here.
There are several problems with this misused expression. First of all, a curb (aka kerb) is a low barrier usually made of concrete or stones on the side of a street, to help set apart the sidewalk. As a verb, curb can be used to mean "hold something back" (such as your enthusiasm) or "prevent something" (such as the spread of swine flu). Did this writer mean to say that the barrier to learning is operating in a slow manner? It might make sense to say that the writer is slow to climb over a learning curb, if such a thing exists.
Educators and psychologists (and now practically everyone) often speak of a "learning curve." That is an expression that dates back to the 1880's, describing variations in the speed of learning or the degree of retention of new knowledge - which can be represented on a graph as a curve (often a steep one). The steepness may show that in the first stages of learning, the student remembers a great deal, but then the amount of retained knowledge levels out afterwards. Or the steepness of the curve may demonstrate how easy or how difficult it is to learn something initially.
The more common expression is that "the learning curve is steep," meaning that there is so much to learn that it is quite daunting at first. That is what I believe this writer meant. And that is certainly the way I feel when I try out some new software, or when Yahoo!, HubPages, Microsoft, or Google decide that the old way of doing things doesn't suit them and so they make radical changes. Then - for someone like me - the learning curve truly is steeeeeeeeep.
And, many people's "favorite" (hahaha): your point is mute. Mute means unable (or unwilling) to speak or utter a sound. Mute can also be used to mean "soften or deaden" a sound or color. A trumpet may use a device known as a mute to produce a softer, thinner tone. An artist might alter some of the colors on the palette or smudge them on the canvas to mute their effect. In law, a person might "stand mute," that is, refuse to enter a plea when being arraigned and thus refuse to stand trial.
But usually, in a discussion or debate, the debater will speak of a moot point. In this context, moot can actually mean one of two things: one is that the point is debatable, open to debate, not settled by any stretch of the imagination; the other meaning is that it is academic, hypothetical, and of no real practical value. In a formal debate, I would assume that the former meaning would prevail ("open to debate, not settled yet"). In online forum arguments, both meanings crop up from time to time, with the balance of those I've seen weighing in as meaning "worthless."
So, does this writer mean that their adversary's point "cannot speak"? (= mute) or that the point "refuses to stand trial"? (= mute) Or do they mean that the point "is not settled and is open to debate"? (= moot) or perhaps that it is an academic argument of no real value, such as "how many people-who-don't-agree-with-me-in-some-way-or-another can fit into a telephone booth"? That is truly a moot point!
