When talking about linguistic notions, the focus is directed to that knowledge that every user needs, especially when it comes to specific situations of dialogue. Thus, establishing a relationship with such an assumption, it is necessary to highlight some “deviations” that this user, as an issuer, commits, both in terms of speech and writing. Often, this position can be due to a simple oversight, as well as the lack of knowledge about the different particularities that guide the language in general.
In this sense, the article in question aims to highlight some cases that constantly manifest themselves, representing the target of questions that, consequently, need to be resolved, in order to avoid certain constraints that act negatively in some situations. So, let's analyze some of them:
Painful and painful – Differences that set them apart
Faced with two words whose difference is established only by the suffix, some doubts will probably arise when distinguishing them. However, these are demarcated by:
The word painful, taken in its broadest sense, refers to anything that can cause pain. By way of illustration, let us stick to the following example:
The treatment was painful (as opposed to painless)
On the other hand, “sore”, whose termination is demarcated by the participle (IDO), refers to something that suffers, that feels pain. As examples, we quote:
My arm is sore.
Still with a sore body, she decided to walk a little.
Do not stop now... There's more after the advertising ;)
In this way, let us try no longer to say that the injection was painful, but rather “painful”, because what is painful is the place where it was applied.
At the expense or at the expense?
Wow, so-and-so lives to this day at his father's expense! Or was it at the expense?
It is quite true that, normally, we hear around “at the expense”. However, it is worth remembering that the word "costs", expressed in the middle
judicial, refers to procedural expenses. So, conveniently, we can say:
These are the procedural costs.
So-and-so lives to this day at his father's expense.
Did he predict or did he predict?
As a matter of fact, it is convenient to consider that the verb to predict derives from the verb to see. Therefore, to conjugate it, we must follow the same pattern as the verb in reference (see). He, you, we all predicted, and we didn't (in past tense).
To the act of grinding the teeth do we attribute bruxism (with the sound of x)?
It is wrong who, until then, made this assumption true.
Know that the real sound due to the pronunciation of this word is the same as for taxi, in other words, “tacsi”.
Thus, it is not convenient to confuse bruxism (now pronounced with the sound of "x", as this refers to witches), with bruxism (pronounced with the same sound as a taxi), since it refers to the act of grinding the teeth.
By Vânia Duarte
Graduated in Letters
