Stopping the Rain of Error

|

From a First Circuit Errata Sheet (original opinion here):

The opinion of this Court issued on March 1, 2021, is amended
as follows:

On page 12, line 17, replace "reign" with "rein"

Actually, notwithstanding the title of my post, "free reign" now seems to be a fairly standard variant. But I still prefer the original, and apparently some judges do, too.

Thanks to Howard Bashman (How Appealing) for the pointer.

NEXT: Why Are Some Courts Issuing Overbroad Injunctions Against Speech? Part 1, Absence of Intermediaries

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So the reign of terror has been reduced to an occasional shower?

  2. So if I’m given “free reign” does that mean I’m King, as opposed to a horse?

    1. But no pay. Strictly an amateur.

  3. “Free reign” may be increasingly common but it’s still universally wrong.

    You reign like a king.
    You rein in a horse (or not when you’re giving them free rein).
    It rains in Spain (mainly on the plain).

    1. That’s not how language works. Human language is not a logical system, like a computer language. If the public decides they prefer “reign” to “rein” or “rain” in that expression, or even just decides it is acceptable to use in reasonably formal setting, that becomes the meaning. Even if you dislike it. It’s not wrong.

      Indeed, YOU are wrong.

      That’s actually, to me, one of the most wonderful things about language. Language is a true democratic institution. Our ruling class can’t force the public to use particular expressions if the public prefers other ones. Rather, the public gets to force the elites to adapt. The elites can whine about how this is “wrong”, but they only show their own ignorance when they do so.

      1. This view and its results are covered quite well in the famous documentary Idiocracy.

        1. I don’t see how the democratic nature of language (which is a fact, not an ideology anyway) gets you to idiocracy. The democratic nature of language coexists with plenty of elitism in other realms.

          1. We understand the flowing evolutionary nature of language, but that does not un-wrong mistakes. Such inflection points are noted by etymologists as a consfusion of similar-sounding terms. They just use nicer language than “here, clueless dumbos who knew no better used the wrong written word for something they’d only heard”.

            I suppose their going to feel bad because they’re feelings were hurt.

            So, no, you are wrong.

            1. Irregardless, I feel a need all of the sudden to create a whole nother post.

              1. Careful, I think you meant “Disirrigardlessly…”

            2. You don’t understand the evolutionary, democratic nature of language if you insist on calling things “wrong” that are not wrong. That is ignorant.

              And it’s the worst kind of ignorance too- it’s ignorance by people who actually think they are smarter.

            3. No, for once Dilan is not wrong. There are many many words in use today which meant the polar opposite hundreds of years ago; are you going to revert your usage to those earlier times? If not, then you implicitly agree that language evolves and different usage is just different, not wrong.

              1. Everybody agrees that language evolves. Even the most stringent prescriptivist is advocating for language that did not exist some time in the past. That’s completely beside the point WuzYoung is making. He’s right even if language evolves. The Panda’s thumb fucking sucks, but we all agree it is an evolved trait.

                1. Obviously the people who call themselves “prescriptivists” can’t deny the reality that language evolves. But that’s not really an important concession given that they want to STOP THE EVOLUTION OF LANGUAGE. Which is, of course, impossible (in addition to being stupid and undesirable).

                  1. But that’s not really an important concession given that they want to STOP THE EVOLUTION OF LANGUAGE. Which is, of course, impossible (in addition to being stupid and undesirable).

                    What’s stupid and undesirable is your repeated insistence on so cluelessly misunderstanding (or intentionally misrepresenting) what others are saying. Nobody is saying that they want to “STOP THE EVOLUTION OF LANGUAGE”. That misinterpretation is the result of your own limitations. Namely, your apparent belief that the only way (or even the primary way) that language evolves is through ignorance-based misuse of words. That’s obviously not even remotely close to true, and you’re the only one who appears to believe it.

                  2. Saying a prescriptivist is trying to stop the evolution of language is like saying a geneticist is trying to stop evolution.

          2. I understand that language changes and all that, but there are some words that no longer mean what they used to and I don’t know what they mean in modern usage. Venal no longer means venal, craven no longer means craven, and fulsome no longer means fulsome. I blame Brian Leiter for two of these, fulsomely.

            1. Best to learn the new meanings.

              1. “Best to learn the new meanings”

                Fine, but I don’t know what the new meanings are and there appears to be no way to find out.

                I’m not against word usages changing with time; I’m quite sanguine about it. But, when people use words that have long been familiar to anyone who has ever regularly read a decent newpaper in new and unfamiliar ways, it’s confusing.

          3. I don’t see how the democratic nature of language (which is a fact, not an ideology anyway) gets you to idiocracy.

            When the “democratic” process that changes the accepted meaning of a word is unchecked ignorance…and people like you think that sort of unchecked ignorance is “wonderful”….

            1. There’s nothing ignorant about changing the meaning of words, because words are arbitrary symbols.

              1. There’s nothing ignorant about changing the meaning of words

                There is when they change due to their misuse by people who don’t know that they’re misusing them. Are you actually arguing that otherwise educated individuals are acting in concert to intentionally change the meanings of these words? If so, to what motivation would you chalk up such a conspiracy?

              2. How dare you call my mother a whore????

                1. I thought she was a hamster?

            2. I bet several of the words in your comment have different meanings now than 100 or 500 years ago. Which is wrong?

              1. I bet several of the words in your comment have different meanings now than 100 or 500 years ago. Which is wrong?

                That would likely depend on which words you’re referring to, what the changes are and why they changed. You’re asking for a specific answer to an incredibly vague question.

              2. “Which is wrong?”

                I think you’re buggering the question.

      2. I’m with Rossami.

        “Free reign” is grating to the eye, especially when used by those whose job it is to write things, like circuit court judges.

        1. So what.

          I know people for whom “less” being used to mean “less in number” grates on their eye. Or “flaunt” as a synonym for flout. That doesn’t make it incorrect. It just means you need to adjust what you find grating.

          1. “That doesn’t make it incorrect.”

            I suppose it depends on what you mean by incorrect. If your goal is not to grate on people’s eyes, then it is incorrect. If your goal is to follow conventional usage, then it’s incorrect.

            Parents tell their children that there is a “correct” way to tie their shoes, for example. That doesn’t mean that there is a fundamentally correct way to tie one’s shoes, it’s just a good way to tie you shoes so that they stay tied and you can untie them later.

            I get your point, but it’s not as straightforward as you say.

            1. You should understand that the eye graters are a minority. The whole point is most people read right past these things, and the people who insist on pretending these usages are wrong are being insincere jerks about language.

              1. Well, the problem with your argument is that it defeats itself. Many people use the term “wrong” in this context to mean “contrary to established conventions.

                You know precisely what people mean when they say “wrong”, you just insist that “wrong” means something else.

                1. No, they use it to mean “contrary to what I think ‘logic’ requires” or even “contrary to what my English teacher taught me”.

                  All these supposedly “wrong” meanings ARE established conventions. It’s totally established to say “less than 10 items” or “flaunt the rules”. This isn’t about defending conventions, it’s about an immature refusal to accept what language actually is.

                  1. “It’s totally established established to say “less than 10 items” or “flaunt the rules”.

                    It’s also totally established to say that those uses are wrong.

          2. I think there is an argument to be made for some degree of prescriptivism here.

            When we conflate the meanings of two similar sounding words we, ever so slightly, impoverish the language. “Flout” and “flaunt” mean two different things, as do “reign” and “rein.” When we mix them up we lose meaning. When someone says, “The lawyer flaunted the law,” it should be clear that the lawyer was waving the law around, not breaking it.

            1. That’s not true at all. The fact that language is full of imprecision and conflation of terms is in fact part of its beauty. It’s something songwriters and comics and poets all work with.

              The purpose of language isn’t to be perfectly precise. We can infer precisions from context. Thank heavens that there’s no mechanism by which overly rigorous people can impose their awful worldview on the beautiful art of language.

              1. You’re not French.

              2. But isn’t some of this lost?

                What makes some of that work, at least for a comic, is precisely the knowledge that the usage is wrong, but sounds right. Malapropisms disappear.

                (I once had a coworker who told me not to cast asparagus on the boss.)

                1. The usage that I’ve heard, which some might characterize as wrong, is to cast dispersions. I won’t go into details, but it was not meant to be funny at the time. A joke, perhaps, which was no laughing matter.

                2. Oh, I just remembered another funny democratic advance in English usage. Someone in a conversation remarked that he was going to go down to the library where people conjugate. I had the courtesy to not inquire if bliss was being sought.

                3. – “I once had a coworker who told me not to cast asparagus on the boss.”

                  I would think that’s still good advice, regardless of the error.

                  1. How do you feel about casting pearls before swimming? Assuming you wait an hour, fo course.

                    1. How do you feel about casting pearls before swimming?

                      That depends. What am I fishing for?

              3. The purpose of language isn’t to be perfectly precise.

                The (primary) purpose of language is effective communication of ideas. The more precise the communication the more effective it is in accurately conveying an idea. Of course there are points of diminishing returns that are reached if one is excessively verbose or uses precise terms that are not understood by one’s audience. But in general, the more precise the language used (and the more widely agreed upon the meanings of the words chosen, including over time) the more effective the communication…which is a good thing.

                It’s especially funny that one needs to remind a lawyer of the importance of consistency and agreed upon meaning in language. It’s even funnier when that lawyer is one who so routinely insists that “well regulated” (with regard to a militia) meant the same thing in 1791 as it would commonly be used to describe today.

                1. The more precise the communication the more effective it is in accurately conveying an idea.

                  This is absolutely wrong. If you believe this, you wouldn’t be able to understand anything poetic.

                  Precision is a really stupid, unimportant value. If you want something precise, learn a computer language. Don’t try and force your unimportant value onto a human one.

                  We humans can figure out precision just fine using contextual clues or even by asking people what they mean. But language supplies beauty to life, which is far more important than precision.

                  1. Precision is a really stupid, unimportant value.

                    Only a really stupid, unimportant person would say that.

                  2. ‘Precision is a really stupid, unimportant value.’

                    This is the wrongest of wrong things on this whole thread of wrong. Even poets value precision. Poets ESPECIALLY value precision, as much as they value ambiguity, or they’re not using the tools of their craft well.

              4. It’s something songwriters and comics and poets all work with.

                Language evolution!

                The best of Oswald Bates

                1. My name is spelled Raymond Luxury Yacht, but it is pronounced Throat Warbler Mangrove.

            2. How about flounder and founder? One good thing, nobody talks about the flounding fathers or flound money. I guess that’s two, but who’s counting?

            3. “When we conflate the meanings of two similar sounding words we, ever so slightly, impoverish the language. ”

              I don’t disagree with you, not literally, anyway.

              Some of these things can be pretty funny. What, for example, does one do with a Welsh rabbit? I don’t know, but I’m sure not going to eat it.

          3. “It just means you need to adjust what you find grating.”

            Kind of like when we switched from a box grater to a food processor.

            1. Indeed. Adjust your grater so that what you find grating as not knuckles.

          4. I find cheese to be grating. 🙂

        2. Whose job is it to write circuit court judges. Perhaps they need to be ridden hard, reined in, and put up wet, but written?

      3. “If the public decides they prefer “reign” to “rein” or “rain” in that expression, or even just decides it is acceptable to use in reasonably formal setting, that becomes the meaning.”

        Not disagreeing with your larger point, but I find it interesting that the spelling differences indicate that the words historically had a different pronunciation.

        The variant “rein” reflects the current pronunciation of both words, but people are choosing the variant with vestigial ‘g’.

        1. Because cowboy TV shows and movies are a lot less common and few people have any experience with horses and their equipment, whereas everyone knows what kings are and do, even without any personal experience.

        2. “Not disagreeing with your larger point, but I find it interesting that the spelling differences indicate that the words historically had a different pronunciation.”

          Also interesting (and perhaps ironic) is that none of the words, historically, were pronounced as they are today

          reign is from Latin regnum
          rein is from Latin retinere
          rain is from proto-Germanic regna

          1. Yup. The Latin ones both by way of French.

        3. I think I’ll start free rain, I see a lot of rain but I don’t see many reins and no one reigns over me.

          1. I’d rather end free rain so everyone has to pay me $1.00 every time it rains.

          2. “I don’t see many reins”

            You must not date the right people.

          3. ‘The rain reigns over Cowyboy Wayne’s reins,’ sung to the tune of The Reynes Of Castamere.

      4. “That’s not how language works. Human language is not a logical system…”

        Maybe in the world where the descriptivist nihilists win, but us noble prescriptivists are prepared to die defending that hill, sir.

        1. You won’t die. You will just be ignored and will look like jerks as you insist on “rules” that don’t actually exist.

          1. Straight question:

            How do you feel about the green grocer’s apostrophe?

            1. Farmers markets do not belong to the farmers. The apostrophe must go.

              1. Farmers markets do not belong to the farmers. The apostrophe must go.

                What is the going market rate for a farmer these days?

                1. I’ve never understood the apostrophe to protect against ambiguity in what is sold at a market. You don’t buy night at night markets. Streets are not sold at street markets. I’ve never purchased fleas at a flea market.

                  It’s also inaccurate to call farmers markets farmer’s markets. Farmers don’t own the market. They’re the customers.

                  1. And you don’t buy fish and chip’s in a pub, nor soda’s from a pop machine.

                  2. It’s also inaccurate to call farmers markets farmer’s markets. Farmers don’t own the market. They’re the customers.

                    Quite the opposite. A farmer’s market (or more correctly, a farmers’ market) is a recurring gathering of farmers (or their representatives) at which they sell their products directly to consumers.

              2. I think the apostrophe is clearly a mistake, but nothing to get one’s knickers all twisted over. After all, what use are twisted knickers and if everyone had them, then where would we be? France, perhaps.

          2. You’re wrong. It is often logical system promoters who help move language in more logical directions. Y’all is better than you guys, teached is better than taught, and so on. These improvements make no sense if descriptivism is king, since whether they keep is just a function of the winds of time.

            1. There’s nothing logical about language, nor should there be.

              1. There’s nothing logical about language

                Not when it comes from you, there isn’t.

              2. If a language didn’t have a logic it wouldn’t be able to function as a language, it would be glossolalia. Anyone can invent a language by gving it logic and rules, and anyone else can learn that language if they learn its language and rules, that’s why anyone can speak Kilingon, Elvish and Esperanto. THAT’S what’s awesome about language.

              3. I don’t agree with either proposition, but based on your response I see that we are so far apart on this issue that it’s not possible for us to have a constructive discussion about it.

                1. it’s not possible for us to have a constructive discussion about it

                  It’s not possible to have a constructive discussion about anything when there are no rules or logic to the language being used.

        2. You can’t have prescriptive rules without an entity with the authority to prescribe them. For language, no such entity exists (The French government likes to pretend they have one, but it’s losing the war).

          1. “You can’t have prescriptive rules without an entity with the authority to prescribe them.” Sure you can. Ever heard of the Ten Commandments ( or eleven or twelve depending on how you count them)?

            1. “Ever heard of the Ten Commandments ( or eleven or twelve depending on how you count them)?”

              Yes. And the people who believe in them believe in the existence of an entity with absolute authority who prescribed those rules.

              People who don’t believe in the existence of that entity generally don’t believe in the Ten Commandments as prescriptive rules.

          2. “You can’t have prescriptive rules without an entity with the authority to prescribe them.”

            Logical rules about language can be persuasive reasons to promote existing logical uses, or promote more logical uses in the future. A pure descriptivist would never care about logic, since they’re just reporting what is. You don’t need an authority to prescribe usage rules, in order to enforce rules. You know this, because you and I are having a conversation in the same language, despite the non-existence of any authority to prescribe the rules you and I are agreeing to when we do so.

            1. Logical rules about language don’t persuade anyone, and we can see that by all the illogical conventions in language that actually exist.

              1. Language can’t exist without logic and rules. The more illogical a language is, the harder it is to learn. English is packed with illogic and inconsistences and arbitrary rule breaking, and people who speak it as a first language have no idea how hard it is to master.

                1. In fact the rein/reign thing is a perfect example of how utterly daft English can be, one word supplanting, or at least used almost contigiously or interchangeably with, another with entirely different meanings, in a culturally specific phrase that has come to have a common meaning, purely because they’re homophones, is sheer hairpulling bannanapants – designed to drive students of English to tears.

                2. Name one naturally developed language that meets that criteria. There are none.

                  1. Name one naturally developed language that meets that criteria.

                    Every single natural language known to man is based on rules and some sort of logical structure. Have you never heard of “linguistics”?

            2. “Logical rules about language can be persuasive reasons to promote existing logical uses, or promote more logical uses in the future. A pure descriptivist would never care about logic, since they’re just reporting what is.”

              1. If those logical rules were genuinely persuasive with a majority of the population, they would become the “what is” that the descriptivist reports.

              2. Logical rules about language that have to rely on being persuasive are not prescriptive.

              1. 1. Which often happens. We are debating it right now, in this thread. Language changes.

                2. Appeals to logic are normative arguments, and normative arguments are prescriptive to people who internalize normative arguments. Even in systems where rules are decided by a prescriptive dictator, the dictator can be persuaded, too.

      5. Actually, you speak in defense of ignorance. You’re lucky that you don’t live in France.

        Imprecision is language is a common rhetorical trick use to mask the true motives of the user. But the misuse of reign is among the lesser incompetencies of wokespeak.

      6. That’s not how language works. Human language is not a logical system, like a computer language. If the public decides they prefer “reign” to “rein” or “rain” in that expression, or even just decides it is acceptable to use in reasonably formal setting, that becomes the meaning. Even if you dislike it. It’s not wrong.

        Indeed, YOU are wrong.

        Even if your anarchist ideology were right, it’s misplaced here. This is not a case of the public deciding that they “prefer” one to the other. It’s a case of some members of the public misunderstanding a phrase that they had only heard and choosing the wrong homophone when they write it.

      7. Our ruling class can’t force the public to use particular expressions if the public prefers other ones.

        No, but we can beat them to death with a shovel.

    2. “Free reign” may be increasingly common but it’s still universally wrong.

      You reign like a king.
      You rein in a horse (or not when you’re giving them free rein).
      It rains in Spain (mainly on the plain).

      The problem, I think, is that “free reign” is a semantically correct way of describing the concept (where *free rain would not be). It’s not the original idiom, but I’m hard pressed to see how it’s “wrong” at all, much less universally so.

      1. I’m not sure I agree. I don’t understand the “free reign” metaphor. Seems to me that reign is free in the same way that rain is wet. Reign less than free is no reign at all. To be honest, neither reign or rein is a common word to me and I always have to think about it a bit to make sure that I’m not making what some fascist asshole prescriptivist would call a mistake. But, I don’t usually worry too much about little mistakes. Only two people in history have never made a mistake: Jesus and Donald Trump. I’m not exactly sure about one of them.

        1. I don’t think there’s anything about the word “reign”, without qualification, that requires absolute license. Elizabeth II, for instance, has virtually no actual power, but she’s still the reigning queen.

          1. Does the reigning heavyweight champion have free rein?

            1. Mike Tyson learned the answer to that one the hard way in 1992.

    3. Akshually, if you look at the etymology, the noun and verb forms of ‘reign’ have different (intermediate) roots. The verb form, which you made reference to, does come through the “to rule, or hold royal power” route – but the noun form actually follows the “regulation, rule, or guidance” route.
      Go back far enough, though, and both come from the same Proto-Indoeuropean root that meant “to move in a straight line” or “to make something move in a straight line”, and both developed their royal meanings by the 14th century… but “free reign” meaning “free structured” (loosely bound) works as well, given both the original and modern usages.

  4. While we’re on the First Circuit, are they ever going to get a better typeface? Or stop putting two spaces after periods? Their opinions are the worst to read in the original.

    Someone needs to send them Butterick’s Typography for Lawyers.

    1. Two spaces after period is to give additional visual clue to separate sentences.

      The new online/computer/proportional font argument to use just one space and let the font’s built in kerning rules deal with it is, quite frankly, broken because it does not acknowledge this.

      In such systems, the space after a period before the start of the next word is often scarcely different from a normal space, and woefully inadequate.

      I acknowledge I stand alone against many programmers who do not actually realize this, and who find unwarranted certitude in the above error, feeling they have latched onto some deep truism of reality, without realizing they’re just children at the circus staring up, mesmerized, at a clown honking his red nose.

      1. “Two spaces after period is to give additional visual clue to separate sentences.”

        There is no need for an additional visual clue because sentences are already separated by spaces. You don’t need two spaces because the thing that signals to the reader that the sentence is over is not the space. As you know, there was a time when the space was necessary, but that time is long gone. There is nothing wrong with having the same space between two words in a sentence, and two words separated by a period.

        1. Two spaces after a period tells you the sentence is over. It makes for quicker and better comprehension. Otherwise you’re thrown off (even if subconsciously) by internal periods following abbreviations such as “Dr.” and “Ms.” and “Mr.” which are almost always followed by a capital letter.

          1. It’s doubtful that the any significant percentage of readers will be thrown off by “Dr.” or “Mr.”, much less enough that could possibly justify unimaginable time waste adding spaces after periods that end sentences. However, if you were really concerned about the potential for readers getting thrown off, the solution is not to add more work for writers after every sentence. Instead we should just remove the period after Dr., Ms., and Mr., as the rest of the world has done. The period after Dr. doesn’t even make sense, as periods in such circumstances were originally intended to signal that a word had more letters after the last one (like Col. or Prof.). In the word “Doctor” and “Mister” there are no letters after the “r”.

      2. Krayt,
        I tend to agree with you. It is one reason why book publishers seldom used Times New Roman.

      3. “Two spaces after period”

        So, does that make you a Knuthist?

  5. But they love typing out their opinions in emacs so much, they’ll never abandon that habit.

    All kidding aside though, maybe it’s a Massachusetts thing. SJC opinions look very similar.

    1. I don’t know what’s going on but I meant to reply to LawTalkingGuy.

      1. Fear knot. You did.

      2. Any post mentioning emacs is inherently self-justifying.

          1. Oy, emacs. Better than six, though.

    2. Since you mention it, why do California courts (and a few other places) continue to insist on those ridiculous ruled-line papers for pleadings and filings? They never work right for me, and are super annoying to use. We have managed just fine on the East Coast without them.

      Then again, California likes to make things complicated. I once had to file a request for an extension of time to answer in the CDCal. That required FOUR different documents totalling 16 pages. In New York federal court, that would have been a one-page letter to the district judge.

  6. Professor Volokh,

    I (and I think a lot of your readers) would be very interested in your take on the Texas Legislature’s proposed SB 12 purporting (at least per the bill analysis) to prohibit social media sites with over 100 million users from engaging in viewpoint discrimination against their users. This bill is available here. I apologize if you’ve already written on this and I just missed it.

    1. Looks like an exercise in mass onanism to me. NTTAWWT

  7. There is logic to “free reign” though, that make the two expressions fairly similar. Free rein = loose or no grip on the rein so the horse can go where it wants. Therefore, the ability to act without external constraint. Free reign – Loose or no restrictions on governance, so the governOR can do what it wants. Therefore, the ability to act without external constraint.

    “Free rein” is certainly the original expression with a long history, but “free reign” is a logical and fairly similar substitute. I don’t see a good reason to fuss.

    1. On the contrary, free reign is redundant. Every reign is free, otherwise it is not a reign its something stupid like a democracy.

      1. You can have reigns that are not entirely free. A monarch may be constrained by a parliament or council, or in the case of England the monarch may have no actual power at all.

        1. Yeah I would not call that a reign. That’s a figurehead.

  8. Further erratum:

    “Affirmed” is changed to “Reversed.”

    1. /just a little humor

  9. First Circuit? Isn’t there some judge there who revels in using obscure English words? How did this slip through?

    1. Well for one thing, that judge wasn’t on this panel.

  10. This is not a great tragedy, because “free rein” and “free reign” have rather similar meanings and “rein” and “reign” still retain their independent uses.

    1. No misspelling is a “great tragedy.” I reserve such a description for things like an airplane crash or a tsunami.

      1. How about decimation and shambles?

  11. Free reign, executive order. Toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe.

  12. I expect to be kept in the manor to which I am accustomed.

    1. But then again, it is “to the manor born.”

      Personally, I like people who wait with baited breath. I assume they could use a Mentos.

      1. I hate that “baited breath” almost as much as I hate the “reins of terror” and “free reigns”.

  13. Are the people defending “take the reigns” also willing to defend these illiteracies I’ve compiled in the last year?

    Snipped it in the bud (nipped)
    Baited breath (bated)
    Vicious cycle (circle)
    Per say (per se)
    Bold faced lie (bald faced)
    Run a muck (amuck or amok)
    Mute point (moot)
    High bread car (hybrid)
    Wreckless (reckless)
    Prophesize (prophesy)
    Cause a raucous (ruckus)
    Poured over a book (pored over)
    That doesn’t jive (jibe)
    Motherload (mother lode)
    Bob wire (barbed wire)
    Take a peak (peek)
    Try a different tact (tack)
    For all intensive purposes (intents and purposes) Jen Psaki really said this.
    Pedestool (Pedestal)
    Your matrix (metrics)

Please to post comments