Words.

(Snort. Very-nearly relevant text in the image there.)

I actually much prefer communicating through the written word. Weird, right, considering this voiceover thing? I find it's easier to get out and organize exactly what I want to say in the manner I want to say it. Maybe this has been said before, but I'll say it again - in this age of social media and instant-gratification news blurbs, however, communication has gotten so hurried that there are (not there's) more errors in the language of people who are more interested in getting the first, last, and every word in, with the accompanying increase in 'No ha ha simper I didn't mean what I said delete delete retract' bull.

Must Of and Must Have - Yeah, I get it. You're more into tech than language. Must of x, where x = grapes, used in the production of balsamic vinegar, does exist. Must of x, where x = (verb), <fatalerror_doesnotcompute> . You must have confused the one with the other.

Past and Passed - Is English language education really getting so bad that not only do 'journalists' miss this, but their editors as well? If you're (not your) bypassing the candy aisle to get to the eggs in the back of the store, you're walking past pretty, shiny, sugary things that poison you with a smile. Also, I can't believe you passed that class.

Shack and Shake - Really, author? One is a small, dilapidated house; the other is either a verb or a tasty dairy drink that I can no longer consume drat. You do not shack your butt at anyone, no matter how many shakes you take to round it out.

It's sad to the point of laughable that these sorts of errors are even creeping into dictionaries, on whose pages (the online kind this time) articles abound on the development of words from accumulated errors. I argue that there's a difference between the changes that occurred when languages developed as they traveled with the people who used them, on foot and horseback, by land and sea. The best information these people had available was limited and hard-won, and I think that since older means of communication took longer to travel from one point to another, it makes sense that there'd be more care put into what information was sent. Now it's 'hey, I saw it spelled that way in something I saw in the news, so it must be right' in a world that cares more about one-upping a competitor by publishing their blurb first than in making sure that the information published and publicized is true and accurate. Articles exploring the change in language have the air of an excuse, that since language changes naturally with the people who use them, the changes that occur due to poor education are excusable. If a person can access social media, what's stopping that person from accessing online dictionaries, or even (has it really come to this?) apps that check the spelling and grammar not worth the bother of learning because that person was busy checking social media? Those sorts of changes aren't excusable, especially in a field where the written word composes the majority of their work.