Words are tools. You do not use a hammer to remove a screw or a breadknife to cut a sewing thread. But somehow, with words, some people think that any word will do, especially if it sounds impressive. As an editor, I come across many instances of misused words. My pet hates are below.

Advocate/Advocate for

'Advocate' can be used as a noun or a verb. Only the noun should be followed by 'for':

I am an advocate [noun] for free speech

I advocate [verb] free speech.

The noun 'sdvocate' can also be followed by 'of': 'I am an advocate of free speech'. The verb should always stand alone.

Alternate/Alternative

In American English these words seem to be interchangeable but in British English the meanings are quite separate. If you work on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays you are working 'alternate' weekdays (i.e. every other one). if your client says 'you can visit me on Monday, Wednesday or Friday' she is giving you alternatives  (she might give you any two or more dates, of which you are expected to choose one).

Below

A very odd use of this word seems to be creeping in, e.g. 'the below table' or 'the below diagram'. It's horrible!  Yes, I know one might say 'the above diagram' but it really doesn't work with 'below' – in British English it is not idiomatic. So stick to 'the diagram below', 'the table below' etc. it just reads better.

'Centred around' ? 'Based around'? Really?

The centre of anything is a single point. An argument, role, activity, etc. can only be 'centred on' something not 'centred around' it. A thing can only be based on, i.e. stand on, something else, not 'around' it. You put a vase on the table, the table is the base for the vase. You cannot base the vase 'around' the table - how would that work? The same logic must apply for abstract concepts as for physical items - an argument must be centred on a principal point, or based on a given premise, otherwise it is just waffle. And as for 'we had a discussion around the problem' - really? We just pussyfooted around it and never got to the point? We talk 'about' things, not 'around' them.

'Compare to'/'compare with'

'Shall I compare thee to a summer's day? Thou art more lovely and more temperate still'  (Shakespeare)

'Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?' means 'Shall I say you are like a summer's day?' The answer is plainly 'no' because the person to whom the poem is addressed is 'more lovely'. When you compare one thing 'to' another, you are saying they are alike. When you compare one thing 'with' another, you are emphasising difference. 'Compared with her sister, she is not a great tennis player; her sister is a great tennis player: I would compare her to Billie Jean King'.

Disconnect/Disconnection

Even the most illiterate person does not say 'there is a connect between a and b' - they say 'connection' - but use of 'disconnect' to mean disconnection is apparently widespread. It's weird - don't do it!  'Disconnect' (like 'connect') is a verb - you disconnect the TV by pulling out the plug. If you think, say, that you and another person are at cross-purposes, there is a disconnection between you - not a 'disconnect'!!

Disinterested or uninterested?

There are two types of interest. If you go into a bank and ask to open a deposit account, you might well ask 'What is the interest?' You do not expect to be told in response 'It is absolutely fascinating!!'

If something bores you, you are uninterested in it.

if you do something with no thought of personal gain, you are disinterested. If you fall in love with a very wealthy person, but would still want them even if they hadn't a penny, you are disinterested - of course, certainly not 'uninterested'! 'Disinterested' can sometimes be replaced by 'impartial' but it would seem absurd to say you had impartial affection for someone: it is in the very nature of affection that you are partial, but you can still be disinterested – pure love is disinterested.

You expect a sports reporter to be interested in sport, but you expect a disinterested  (i.e. impartial) account of a given match – the reporter should not be rooting for one side or the other, but report on what took place, giving credit wherever due.

Due to/owing to

Only a preceding noun can be 'due' to something; in the absence of  a relevant preceding noun, or where the relevant word is a verb,  it's 'owing to'.

The flood [noun] was due to rain

The flood worsened [verb] owing to rain.

Owing to rain, there was a flood.

'Due to' can only be used where you might have written 'caused by'  while 'owing to' is equivalent to 'because of'

Elision - what is it?

When parts of a word are suppressed - for instance, when writing  'don't' instead of 'do not', the letters and spaces that are no longer there have been elided. As a result the two words are merged. The merging is not the elision - the elision is what results in the merging. When you mean 'merging' write 'merging' - not 'elision'. The word is now often used in other contexts. Use 'elision' (noun)/'elide' or 'elided' (verb) for something that has been taken away - but you could avoid all misinterpretation by writing 'omission' or 'deletion' as appropriate.

Enormity

Means 'great wickedness' - not anything that happens to be rather large.

Fewer or less?

'Less' is used frequently when 'fewer' is meant. 'Fewer' applies to individual items whereas 'less' applies to continuous quantities. If you want less milk, order fewer pints; if you want to spend less time working, work for fewer hours.

Focus

A camera is focused (automatically or by its user) on something; a person focuses on something. Why use the passive? And one focuses on something - it's impossible to focus around an object. No lens will do that!

Imbricated

This word seems recently to have become fashionable, though I have yet to see it used correctly. In all the examples I have seen it is accompanied by 'in' - 'this is imbricated in...'. This is an impossible combination - 'imbricated' means overlapping, like tiles on a roof, so one thing cannot be 'imbricated in' another - two things either overlap or they do not. I suspect all the writers who use 'imbricated in' mean 'embedded in' - so why not say so?

Lend or loan?

In British English, 'loan' is a noun and 'lend' is the corresponding verb (past tense: lent)

'The bank gave me a loan'

'The picture is on loan from the Louvre'

'The bank will lend/has lent me the money'

'The Louvre lent the gallery the picture'

 There is no past tense of 'loan' - it is a noun!

Sat/Sitting

Nobody says/writes: ‘I was went to the office when I saw the accident’ or ‘I was had my lunch when my friend arrived’ or ‘I was ran for the bus but I missed it’.

So why do they say/write ‘I was sat next to Sam at the theatre’ ? It’s illiterate! Stop it! 

The past imperfect of sit is sitting – ‘I/she/he/it was sitting’ , 'they/you were sitting' (just like: ‘I/she/he/it was going’ ‘I/she/he/it was having’, 'you/they were having' or ‘I/she/he/it was running’, 'you/they were running').

Stood/standing

See 'Sat/Sitting' above. 'I stood there for hours' /'I was standing there for hours'