Style

I have often heard "mute point" confused with "moot point." This happened often enough, that I began to clarify the distinction when I was on conference calls: A mute point is one that is made while the mute button is pushed on the conference phone, and thus not heard. A moot point is one that is debatable, and thus, possibly not worth being heard.

Sanction is another word that should be avoided.

Oversight:

1) an unintentional failure to notice or do something

2) the action of overseeing (i.e. supervising) something, e.g. the 'O' in PCAOB.

I think both meanings are in use in both US and UK nowadays.

For this American, 'oversight' simply has two different meanings, usually distinguishable through context.

Doesn't oversight mean two different things in the two countries as well?

In British English a moot point may be arguable, that is it may have a sound basis but the implication would more often be that it is questionable, not the same thing at all.

I'm going to try to use table as a verb more often now. :-)
Thanks R.L.G.

It took some time for me to recognise that when Americans say "table" they really mean "shelve".

In British history Moots were, in Anglo-Saxon times, meetings where decisions were made, and one of the origins of Parliament; issues brought up at a moot were sometimes of life and death importance, and decisions were made there. So I, as a Brit, also prefer the definition "moot point" as a debatable issue worth discussing, not as something of irrelevant, tardy or purely academic interest.

I'm English and have always used "moot" in what I now learn is the British English fashion. I've seen or heard plenty of people use it in the US way, though, and it was always a minor peeve of mine that they weren't using the word "correctly". I hypothesised that those using the US meaning had read the word, and rather than check a dictionary, had inferred the "wrong" meaning from the context.

It's nice to know that I was wrong about that, although I've come across plenty of British folks using it in the US fashion, and vice versa.

The American sense of moot is an intensification of the British, meaning *so* "arguable, doubtful or open to debate" that it is "hypothetical or academic, ie, of no practical significance." The British sense is not rare in America, especially in writing.

It would be so useful if "moot" could be restricted to its technical meaning: a matter (typically a legal matter) that no longer needs to be decided because circumstances have made it irrelevant. For example, the methodology for determining damages in a defamation case becomes moot if it is established that the statements were true and their publication was covered by the public interest defence.

Of course, whether we ought or ought not to use "moot" in this restricted sense is itself a moot point, because the language will go its own way whatever we decide.

Here on the west coast of Canada, I have frequently heard "mute pont" used instead of "moot point". Apparently "mute" to them conveys that the point "says nothing". I have given up trying to correct them, for fear of appearing pedantic and for fear that my interjection will be seen as a moot point. Perhaps this is how languages evolve?

The American definition of "moot" is a bit more rich than stated here. It's not just synonymous with hypothetical or academic. It's the British definition, i.e., open to debate, plus the nuance that debate is pointless, e.g., actions or decisions have been taken that cannot be undone.

'Enjoin' is another US/UK linguistic trap.

See the blog "separated by a common language" for discussions of both moot and table.