So, would sticking in "whoms" where they don't belong be a reverse status marking error in that people would assume you know what you're talking about

It's not a reverse status marking error. It's still a status marking error. There's no indication of what that status is. It's more about the aquisition of standard academic English, or maybe what Mirna Shaughnessy would call transactional English-- the sort of langauge of public transactions (education, civic, professional etc).

According to Edgar Schuster, there are a small number of status marking errors that span both ends of the spectrum, including using "Anyways", "Irregardless" all the way double comparisons (i.e., "I like math more better now") and double negatives.

Ah... grammar....

In British English, apparently there are several status marking indicators shared by the lower and upper-classes -- because the upper classes hire from the lower classes when they pick nannies.

Irregardless

Also hate. I've pretty much given up on that one too, though.

The one that gets me is liberry. From people who work at one in a University.

Grrr.

See, I've been know to use 'supposably' and 'liberry' for fun. Feel free to beat me now. I do try not to around children and stupid people though.

Strenth for strength.

Mute point.

Less when it should be fewer.

And, in remembrance of what thread we're in, people whole mispronounce "Minear."

In English language news, I ran across a spelling error yesterday that had been picked up verbatim from a previous book. Which book had picked that spelling error up from a different previous book. I checked four books, and the spelling error was in all of them. So at least it was consistent, but I am pretty sure there is no ship called the USS Kearsage.

That's four different copyeditors, four accuracy reviewers, four proofreaders, the author four times, and at least three editors who are not fans of maritime history.

See, I've been know to use 'supposably' and 'liberry' for fun

Me, too, Jars. Also: sammich, punkin, nakin (for napkin because that's how my little bro pronounced it when he was wee) and bikit (for biscuit, same reason as nakin).

There's a krav instructor that says "groind" for "groin." As far as I know, that error will live as long as they do, because for fear of their own, no one's going to point it out.

What chaps my ass, though, is heighth. I'd thought it a "just one guy" thing, but I've been hearing it around.

In English language news, I ran across a spelling error yesterday that had been picked up verbatim from a previous book. Which book had picked that spelling error up from a different previous book. I checked four books, and the spelling error was in all of them.

One of the fun things about Google Scholar is that you can do a search on your own stuff or some classic paper and see how the citations of said stuff change over time, as people copy previous errors and insert their own. Eventually you find out that you published a paper in 1897 in the Journal of Psychiropractic Medicine or some other field that doesn't really exist. I'm not sure if it's more like an accumulation of DNA mutations over several generations or more like that party game where a chain of people whisper a message to the next person in line, but either way it testifies to the carelessness of the science community when it comes to citations.

It might be fun to be a Psychiropractor, though.