And as to illiteracy in the various media, here are 21 things I particularly dislike -- in no particular order of importance.

1. "Adage", "aphorism", "saying", "motto", "maxim", "proverb", "apophthegm", "parable", "axiom", "epigram" ... no one seems to make distinctions between these things any more. Not that many journos and the like would know what any of them are.

2. "As far as" ... without qualification. E.g., "As far as agricultural production, the drought has really taken its toll". Though for a 2(a) I'd expect "it's" in place of "its". See 13.

3. "As good as what it is now". The problem is obvious, I hope. I shall call this "the gratuitous 'what'".

4. "Tumor-ic" for "turmeric". I haven't heard or seen a cooking expert yet that gets this right. More cases for the live expert trade perhaps.

5. "8 items or less", in supermarkets. The word "item" is a count noun and so takes "fewer" -- not to mention "many". I even heard someone say "You see much scooters on the roads these days". Is English losing the mass/count distinction? I hope not. We've had it since the Beowulf scop crawled into the meadhall.

6. The radio geographical: "Now we’re going to Norway", "Let’s take a trip around the country" (as our local ABC weather person often says). This is a cousin of 6(a): radio oral art: "Can you paint a picture of ...?". Note I say "oral" not "verbal". Writing is verbal: probably more so than speech which is less obviously broken into words. Verbum (Latin) = "word".

7. "Haitch". Try correcting this for any mindless bugger on the phone. This includes university employees.

8. Crossword speak: "definition" [for the literal part of the clue], "wordplay" [for the cryptic part], "link", "anagram fodder".... I could go on. These are all crap.

9. "Utilise" when "use" (verb) will do. Ditto for "usage" when "use" (noun) will also do. I hope we don't lose the specific meaning of "usage" because it will then get much harder for me to explain my pet illiteracies to the ungrammared masses. I hope "utilise" (worse, "utilize") dies of congenital syllepsis.

10. "Partake" instead of "take part". We partake in/of, say, a meal. That is, we have our share with others who have invited us so to do. The connotations of hospitality are not far from the surface. "The digital application allows children to partake in quizzes, play games or activate special effects on the screen" (Oz, 2 Apr 08, p5). This is a slight distinction perhaps, but one we need.

• Bullets in lists. Makes me think I'm looking at a PowerPoint slide concocted by a Sith Ifrican MBA.

12. Use vs mention. This is tricky philosophically. But in writing it's simple. If you're referring to a word or words, it's a case of mention and quotation marks should be used. If you're using a word or words to, for example, denote something then it's a straightforward case of use. Example: "The fire has seven letters" means I've just chucked my electricity bill, my tax bill, my water bill, my rates bill, my phone bill, my broadband bill and my former wife's lawyer's final demand into the wood stove. "'The fire' has seven letters" is what we want.

13. The contagion of bad spelling in internet forums: "Definately", "there"/"their", "its"/"it’s" ... and a thousand others I could mention. (Nb: "mention".) Everyone out there must know the rules because they get them so consistently wrong. It's most obvious in programming forums, frequented by young people who know that if you put a space in the wrong place in a sub-routine, it won't work. Such sloppiness on the part of such sticklers for accuracy!

14. " You"/"youse"? Hesitant question-mark here because, when I hear it, I want to reach for my Chambers. But I also lament the lack of a distinction between singular and plural "you" in current English.

15. "Verbal" for "oral". See 6 above.

16. "Lie" and "lay". ABC-RN 29 March 2008: "you can be totally laid" (interview with luxury plane designer) on a question by Alan Saunders as to whether there will be more members of the Mile-High Club with the introduction of luxury personal cabins on planes. She means: "you can lie down completely [in these cabins]". Alan was too much of a gentleman to make the correction.

17. "Quote" and "quotation". The former is only a verb in my book (except when you get one from a plumber -- if you're lucky enough to find one). Phrases like "in the above quote from Kant..." are doubly problematic. Not only should "quote" be "quotation" but we have to wonder whom it was that Kant was quoting. I suggest, "in the above passage [quoted] from Kant...". A citation can be a quotation; but the term is best kept for the marks in the text (for example, following a quotation) that tell the reader which source is being relied upon. A reference, in this context, is a full bibliographical entry for the source relied upon. OK, this is a personal preference: but we need clarity.

18. "Critique" should only ever be a noun and preferably reserved for writings which are critiques in the technical sense such as Kant’s Third Critique (Kritik der Urteilskraft). Some dictionaries allow "critique" to be a verb meaning "criticise" which is nonsense in the above context of the strict critique — Kant does not criticise the faculty of judgment; he shows where its limits lie. "Critique" has been allowed into dictionaries as a verb because so many people use it that way -- sloppily and in a vain attempt to sound either portentous or more intelligent than they really are. They do not mean, in fact, anything more than the common-or-garden "criticise". Don't get me started on "deconstruct" -- a term which almost no-one can use properly.

19. "Anglo-Celtic", used to mean variously "of UK and/or Irish extraction", "British" or "of British extraction". For example, before I was chucked out of first-year Sociology, the textbook included the phrase "mainstream (Anglo-Celtic) Australia". The hyphen between these two adjectives strongly suggests that both factors are in play, the "Anglic" and the "Celtic". There are, consequently, not very many genuinely Anglo-Celtic Australians. The matter gets worse when the term "Anglo" is used. Not only is it wrong, especially when it morphs into becoming a noun (!); it is offensive. Just as offensive as calling a person of Chinese extraction "Sino". "Pom" and "Pommy" are decidedly more traditional and pleasant alternatives -- for English persons, at least. As with "deconstruct" (above), don't get me started on "Semitic".

20. "In store" or "instore" used in ads to mean that an item is in stock and available for purchase at a particular commercial venue. Let’s hope this doesn’t over-ride the usual meaning of "in store". Think of the semantic slack in expressions like: "We have a great deal in store for you".

21. Haven't thought of one yet. Possibly: incomplete lists.

Sledge