Merriam-Webster dates the use of "forum" in English to the 15th century. When a word borrowed from another language has been part of English for a long time it is proper to use the "English-based plural system." Thus we say "forums," not "fora," and "stadiums," not "stadia." If you are referring to ancient Roman places, you might be justified in using the Latin plural form. But to refer to places where football is played as "stadia" or to on-line discussion groups–even this one–as "fora" can sound affected. It's not wrong to do so, but it's pedantic to insist on it.

It's interesting to see how passionate some get over the pronunciation of this one word. For the record, I pronounce it like want, though I can't be certain how anyone pronounces that word, either.

I am seeing three distinct pronunciations represented: Ant (like the bug), Awnt, and Ahnt. I have never felt any of these to be superior to the others; they are simply regional and cultural differences. Why not enjoy the salad?

You say tomato, I say tomato, but don't you be dissin' my Auntie!

Good one, Ron. I caught on to your game a bit late, just after reading John's and Porsches's earnest responses. You should have "drug it out" longer. We all enjoy a good grammatical battle, however specious.

Still, your point is a good one. Members of the press abuse the language daily. I recently heard the (alleged) verb "efforting" used—or should I say utilized—by a newscaster from MSNBC. The press is not alone in this. Amtrak insists that I am a "customer," rather than a passenger. I fee like a pigeon. They tell me to "detrain." Greyhound, to their credit, has never asked me to "debus." And TV chefs always want to tell me how to "plate" my food, as if it were to be coated in gold.

You ask where it will stop. It won't. It will go on until English breathes its last dying breath. We will argue then whether it is redundant to say "last dying breath," perhaps with our collective penultimate-dying breath.

John, It's amazing how closely we agree, yet still we debate. I never said that easily confused or misused words were the same as nonstandard ones. They ain't. But I see that you see my point, and so all is right in the world.

John,

I gave not examples of misspellings, but of easily confused or misused words:

comminate: to denounce

comminute: to pulverize

impartable: able to be imparted

impartible: indivisible

gaff: a large hook or harsh treatment

gaffe: a faux pas

But my point remains this: the use of non-standard words erodes the credibility of the writer (or speaker). Perhaps "obstinancy" will one day supplant "obstinacy." Till that day, why risk credibility? Once people doubt that you know the meanings of the words you use they will doubt that you know what you are talking about. And that, my obstinate friend, cannot lead to clarity.

Good point, Porsche, many responders didn't really address the question.

However, Abbie was also correct. The prefix "ab" does not negate the root word it is attached to. It means "from," "away," or "off."

"Abnormal" means "deviating from the normal or average." Thus there are degrees of abnormality, degrees of distance from the norm.

This should be obvious to all internet users.

I like Angela G's answer. She is correct: "tomorrow" descends from "on the morrow." As such, "on tomorrow" is grammatically redundant. I'd like to think "on tomorrow" means "on t'morrow," but that usage went bye-bye in the 16th century.

I suspect that "on tomorrow" is a regionalism—a southern one, judging from the comments. I am a fan of regional talk. It both enriches the language and lets you know you are someplace else.

The question was: is there a term to denote (that is to say, a noun) a rhyme-less word? I think it's fair to turn it around: is there a noun meaning "a word which has a rhyme?" I'm pretty sure the answer is no to both questions.

We don't disagree, entirely, on "obstinancy." You say it is a word, I say it is "is not properly a word," which leaves a little wiggle-room. Let's just agree that it's not standard English.

But I do maintain that nonstandard words lead to unclarity, not just because the words may be misunderstood, but because a reader or listener with knowledge of correct English will balk and bristle at the error and doubt the articulateness of the writer or speaker. Was that comminate or comminute? Impartable or impartible? A gaff or a gaffe? (I can stand the gaff.) At this point you have lost the attention and trust of the erudite, and entirely confused the rest.

Porsche,

Your elided gaffe eluded me. I'm far from the original question, but what is a better salutation? Business email ping-pongs between the poles of ALL-CAPS YELLING and "hi guys." There ought to be a dignified, respectful way to open an electronic message. And to end one.