HR is hot. HR is in. HR is everything, these days. But most people do not know how to write it out. The thing is human resources is always written like this. It is a noun which always takes the plural when meaning people's skills and abilities, seen as something that an organisation can make use of. It is never human resource. However, when meaning a department in an organisation that deals with employing and training of people, both singular and plural can be used. Preferably the latter. But then it becomes more a question of style than usage. Incorrect usage in the Financial Express (Attrition rates high among HR professionals; April 19, 2007) [Link]:

There are certain mistakes that are not typos or oversights. The usage of violent mob is one. [I had an earlier take on this about angry mobs.] A mob is always violent; there are no peaceful mobs. When the adjective that one is using to qualify a noun is embedded in the latter itself, the use of the adjective is redundant. You don't really talk of cold icecreams, do you? Usage of violent or angry mob is as stupid as that. I found this in a CNN-IBN story (3 get life term for anti-Sikh riots; March 29, 2007): Kaur's husband Niranjan Singh, a head constable with the Delhi Police, who was on duty at Shahdara Railway Station on November 1, 1984, was lynched and set ablaze by a violent mob led by the accused.

Here's a word that I believe belongs to the vocabulary of upstarts: publically. To start with, I shouldn't call it a word, for it is not one. It is a figment of imagination — usually, those of upstarts. The (correct) word, as we all know, is publicly. Meaning, by/of the public (e.g. publicly owned company), or in front of the public or in full glare of the public (He publicly apologised for his misdemeanour). I found this on NDTV (Suspended Pak CJ addresses rally; March 28, 2007): Pakistan's suspended chief justice Iftikar Chaudhury has spoken publically for the first time since President Musharraf suspended him about three weeks ago. A search on Google News yielded only two instances of this non-existent word in the last one month. The Times of India (Buddhadeb faces politburo test; March 16, 2007) had one:

Some habits are a matter of concern. I mean habits of some subs. Maybe, many subs. It's about usage of concerned. Concern as a noun is primarily a feeling of worry about/for/over somebody/something. Concern as a verb would mean to involve or affect somebody. Primarily speaking, of course. Concerned as an adjective is concerned with the former. So when you use concerned before a noun, it would mean that the person (yeah, yeah, the noun I am talking about) is quite worried about something. It does not mean that the person is involved with someone or something. If you mean the latter, it is a better idea to use it after the noun. This example from the Indian Express/Lucknow Newsline (Police pull out gunners of 5 MLAs; March 24, 2007) would suggest that the committees were extremely worried:

Ok. that's a bad pun. A bad joke, I admit. But if you go through the cruel jokes that subs inflict on us when it comes to phrasal verbs, you are sooner or later going to lose all your sense of humour, and sense of grammar as well. Just as well. It is now quite fashionable to use mull whenever you can. I am not going to mull the usage of this word, because it cannot be done. I mean, you just can't mull something as you cull dogs these days. The thing is mull as a verb in itself does not stand, the phrasal verb is to mull over. To mull over something means to spend time thinking carefully about a plan or a proposal. Here's a Press Trust of India (PTI) creed reproduced faithfully by CNN-IBN (Govt mulling increasing no of SC judges; March 24, 2007):

One idiomatic expression which is rampantly, and erroneously, thought of as one word is in spite of. Inspite is NOT a word. As the OED will tell you, if you say that somebody did something in spite of a fact, you mean it is surprising that that fact did not prevent him/her from doing it. As straight as that. Some recent examples of this glaring mistake: The Economic Times (Ore export duty to help in resource conservation; March 11, 2007; PTI creed): State-owned iron export company NMDC has declared 90 per cent operating profit in the financial year 2006-07 inspite of exports on long term contracts. The majority of iron ore exports is on spot basis that indicates companies in this space are making even higher profits, the statement said. The Times of India (She saved the girl in her womb; March 8, 2007):

After the former editor of the Times of India, Sham Lal, died, I closely followed most stories about this "literary journalist", as he was hailed by many. So, when I read through this one about another former editor paying tribute to the columnist, I couldn't but help notice this bloomer (February 23, 2007): We spotted Sham Lal there, having a drink too. This was a rare sight. A lady I knew walked up to me and said she wanted to get introduced to him. Sham Lal spoke to her very courteously, but after a while, he started to look disinterested in the conversation. No, not disinterested; the word should have been uninterested. Disinterested means impartial, while uninterested means to lack interest. The same mistake was there in the Telegraph too earlier last month (February 6, 2007):

Late last week, a Reuters creed about the US-Iran nuclear standoff appeared in a number of newspapers. The fourth para was: The first sanctions resolution seeking suspension of Iran's uranium enrichment program was approved by the Security Council in December. It took the United States and its partners several months of bitter wrangling to pass the resolution and the Americans, at least, are keen to avoid that kind of division this time. Bad and commonplace mistake. Resolutions are either adopted or approved. Bills are passed. A story on ibnlive.com on February 24 made the same mistake with:

All good journalists make mistakes. All good desk hands make typos. No mistake is acceptable, but some can be understandable. And some are simply not admissible even as oversights. One such confusable pair of words people invariably make mistakes with is affect vs effect. To affect means to have an effect on. Effect is usually the noun; effect as a verb means to bring about in an effective manner. In a less common usage, one can affect (show off) something in an ostentatious manner. Elementary, really. You would have learnt to differentiate between the two words in school. You wouldn't, of course, if you went to the wrong school. Here are two bloomers from a recent item on ibnlive.com. The first is a screaming headline (March 3, 2007): 2nd phase of CRR hike comes into affect No, it was not an oversight or a typo. The second para had it too:

A few days back a former colleague of mine called me up. She now works with a magazine, and seems to be doing well. She just has that one problem only — she is not quite sure whether she works with a specialty magazine or a speciality magazine. I don't blame her — not many people do. Someone told her the first is the American way of writing it, and the second British. She also looked up a few dictionaries, and ended up even more confused. Merriam-Webster differentiates the two this way: Specialty can be a distinctive mark or quality. Or, it can be something in which one specialises. It can be the state of being special, distinctive, or peculiar. Or still, it can be a special object or class of objects like a legal agreement embodied in a sealed instrument, or a product of a special kind or of special excellence.