Good catch... It could be that the writer was just firing out words to describe Bucky's history and didn't make the distinction between 'depraved' and 'deprived' perhaps even completely unaware there's a difference... In the sentence 'deprivation' follows 'isolation' quite well, but 'depravation' equally precedes 'torture' so it really could be either. I think considering what happened to Barnes, 'depravation' was probably intended.

Thanks for the input, bluersun.

It seems to me that more and more people are incapable of differentiating between similar sounding words and English is far from the only language suffering from this. The way the phrase is structured, I still think it should have been "deprivation". Actually, when entering "to suffer depravation" on google, it immediately asks if I don't mean "deprivation", it just doesn't seem like a usual way of using "depravation" in a sentence (funny, my spell-checker doesn't even recognize it as a word). No point in making a fuss out of this, of course, as I doubt we'll ever know what they were thinking.

Where are you from and what other words are confused in your language? It annoys me when people say 'of' instead of 'have' as in 'should have' or 'should've'...' I put this down to mainly British people as I can't say I've noticed it with other English speaking people. Also, when people confuse 'there' 'their' and 'they're' really does my head in... Again, this seems to be attributed to The Sun reading Jeremy Kyle Show fans...

I'm Portuguese and far too many to mention. Truth be told, we have a huge amount of homophones that only differ in a single letter, classical examples are "concerto" (concert) vs "conserto" (1st person singular of the verb "consertar" - to fix) and "cozer" (to boil, in a wide sense to cook) vs "coser" (to sew), there's an insane amount of people who cook their shirts and sew the veggies! :) But my pet peeve is the "à" (contraction of the preposition "a" with the feminine article "a", so basically 2 "a"s) vs "há" (3rd person singular of the verb "haver"- to exist, to have, to happen - it's not an easy one for foreigners to learn, that's for sure), tiny little words that give most people huge headaches. Or rather, used to, because now I see far too many college graduates who don't know the difference and really couldn't care less about it either. I'm not a linguist, I just think that precision in language leads to precision in thought and can make communication more clear. I have no idea who Jeremy Kyle is but I'm quite aware of the general level of The Sun and what you mention seems to be quite true. Sometimes it's so bad my first reaction the couple of times I've been to the UK (London, actually) is "OMG! Help! I don't understand English at all! What are these people saying??? Help|!??". It gets better after a couple of days and it really depends on which part of town we're talking about, but it's really an interesting experience... :-/

Very interesting! Apparently English is the hardest language to learn, but you seem to have grasped it better than most of the locals! Just to clarify, Jeremy Kyle is a talk-show host who baits and bullies his guests - people usually with bad hygiene - who are on the show to do lie detectors and paternity tests. Can't stand the guy or his demographic...! Cheers!

Thanks! That kind of compliment means a lot to me, because I do love the English language and how it has allowed me to access so much information and get in touch with all sorts of people from all over the world. I have to disagree with English being hard to learn, to me it was definitely the easiest one I've tried and that includes French and Spanish, which are Romance languages just like Portuguese, and are all very close to each other grammatically. To us, the basics of English are extremely easy because your adjectives and verbal forms almost don't vary depending on person, gender or even number. Take the very commonly used verb "to have" - I have, you have, he/she/it has, we have, you have, they have. Now the Portuguese equivalent "ter" - eu tenho, tu tens, ele/ela tem, nós temos, vós tendes, eles têm - or the French "avoir" - j'ai, tu as, ill/elle a, nous avons, vous avez, ills/elles ont. Add to that the past, the future, the conditional, the imperative, the past perfect, the past more than perfect (that's actually a thing) and you can begin to imagine how "to have, had, had" sounds like a very practical and easy thing. Also, adjectives: they always have to agree in gender and number and everything has a gender! Everything! And more often than not, it's not the same across the different Latin languages (ex: milk is masculine in Pt and Fr, but feminine in Sp; a bed is fem in Pt and Sp but masc in Fr, etc). We also have another, not necessarily unfair advantage, but something that if played right can make us sound more erudite than we truly are. English is a sort of schizophrenic language because of its double heritage from both Anglo-Saxon and Latin roots, with two sets of words for just about anything, the Latin variation being usually the more scholarly sounding of the two. Our languages, however, evolved almost exclusively from Latin. You can have floodings or inundations, we only have "inundações"; you wash or lave yourselves, we "lavamos" our faces and our clothes. I guess when one gets the basics of a language, what is left to do is pretty much the same across the whole spectrum: first it's important to acquire vocabulary, the more the merrier, and then learn and interiorize colloquial speech in such a way you no longer think in your native language and conscientiously try to translate, but effectively think in the language your speaking. And that's where not dubbing movies comes into play, I grew up watching way too many American and occasionally British subtitled films and tv shows. :) Sorry for dragging this for yet another lengthy post.