Lay or lie

Lay and lie cause a surprising amount of confusion. Put simply, lie is a verb that means to rest horizontally (as well as to tell an untruth). Lay is a verb that means to set something down. E.g. - "He lay down his sword." or "She told him to lie on the bed."

Less or fewer

Fewer should be used when referring to things that can be counted - E.g. Fewer coins. Fewer leaves. etc

Less should be used for singular nouns - E.g. Less integrity. Less vinegar. etc

"Try to" or "Try and"

 

A particular pet hate for me is the use of "try and" instead of "try to". But it could be argued that my distaste for it is unjustified - not least, because "try and" seems to be the older form,

The argument goes that when the verb "try" is followed by an infinitive, it needs to be preceded by "to". However it has been pointed out by many that this "rule" has been being regularly broken since at least the 13th century. Indeed, we all do it with infinitives following words like "come" and "go". E.g. - "Come and see" or "Go and get it."

Nevertheless, I would still always argue for opting for "try to" rather than "try and".

"Try and" may be the older form, but "try to" is the more effective. It can do things that "try and" cannot do, such as function in inflected forms E.g. - "They tried to tell him." rather than "They tried and tell him."

Parthian shot or Parting shot

A "Parthian shot" is a cutting remark made while retreating. Its origin is with the Parthians, an ancient Persian people. These warriors were renowned for their skills as cavalry archers, and would often cover their own retreat with a burst of attack.

This detailed derivation makes it preferable to the alternative spelling, "Parting shot", which has the whiff of a mishearing about it. Confusingly the first recorded use of "Parthian shot" in modern English (in The Times in 1842), comes a little later than "Parting shot" (in a Quaker's document of 1828), but nevertheless we are of the opinion that the correct spelling for this figurative expression is "Parthian shot".

That or which

"That" should be used with restrictive clauses and "which" should be used with non-restrictive clauses. A non-restrictive clause will always read as an aside - e.g. - The dog, which had brown fur, was eating its food. In other words, the sentence would still make sense if you removed the clause altogether. (The dog was eating its food)

A restrictive clause, or defining clause, is essential to the meaning of the sentence. E.g. - The dog that had no teeth could not each its dinner. If you attempt to remove this clause, you will lose the key piece of information in the sentence.

As you will also note from the above examples, non-restrictive clauses need a comma (before the "which"), while restrictive clauses should not have a comma (before the "that").  

That or which should only be used as a pronoun before an inanimate object or an animal. If referring to a person, it should be who. 

Capital or Capitol

The noun capital can refer to accumulated wealth, the city that serves as the seat of a nation's government, uppercase letters or a form of punishment that involves death. 

The noun capitol, with an O in place of the A, refers to a building in which the legislative body of government meets. In the USA, for example, the Capitol is the Washington building in which the US Congress sits.

Formerly or formally

The adverb formerly means previously, at a former time - e.g. - He was formerly employed by a firm of solicitors. 

The adverb formally means in a formal way - e.g. - The solicitor's letter was formally presented.