words most often used incorrectly

[5544]

Who & whom

 

[dtripoli]

'Literally'
It's lost all meaning and is simply another way of saying; incredible or truly or used as an exclamation.

Words often misspelled,
Squire for Squier
My strings are so low they are within a hares breath of buzzing..which should correctly be; a hair's breadth,
meaning the thickness of a hair.

My girlfriend is so hot, I am freely at her beckon call...correct term is beck and call. She becks or calls, I'm there.

Now if you will excuse me, I've got to get to the auto repair shop before they close and get the Cadillac Converter on my Mustang changed.

 

[5544]

No, because I noticed she lost her crap when I politely suggested a spelling correction in one of her "Sorry Not Sorry!" diatribes.
I'm clever enough not to do it again & just laugh at how poorly she expresses herself.




You obviously didn't actually read my post before trying to poke holes in it.



Of course I noticed your conspicuous attempt at calling me shallow & pedantic!
I'm done here
This is how you so often choose to conduct yourself & I'm fed up with it

You just need to file comments like that in one of these:

 

[J-Bassomatic]

While there was such a thing as a standard Old English at a certain stage, it never achieved bulletproof consistency. Neither did any subsequent standards, for that matter, and the present one is no exception. Both forms, with and without metathesis (the -sk- one happens to be etymologically truer to the Germanic and Proto-Indo-European antecedents, but it could have gone the other way just as easily), coexisted in Old English times, and the -x- form pops up throughout the recorded history of the language. I've never studied this item in detail but I suppose it's not easy to establish if its current use in AAVE is directly inherited from specific British dialects or, as is probably the case, a re-creation due to metathesis being a very common type of phonetic change.
Not that it matters. "Ax(e)" in the sense of "ask" is not part of Standard English and no one disputes that. Also, it wouldn't be any more or less prestigious if it came directly from Old English; putting aside direct inheritance, even the fact that it isn't anything new has no bearing on its acceptability: "standardness" is a product of continuous re-negotiation within the speaking community, not a given or a never-to-be given.
What I hope awareness of the long history of the form can do is make it less of a shibboleth, an overly loaded point of contention. It's just a word form, not a sign of laziness or willful ignorance, let alone a Sign of linguistic End of Days. Apocalypse in a language happens every new generation: we are the agents of decadence, but what comes next is no chaos, just a new, precarious order.

Right. I need a nip from my flaks.

 

[5544]

I can think of 3 words off of the top of my head that are completely misused.

But since it is 2017 and not 1917, I am not able to use those words (even correctly) without being prosecuted for hate speech.

 

[Rocker949]

Yup. Now, are you of the persuasion to say you lucked out when in luck? Both ships sailed but only one seems to bug North Americans.

The difference is that "I could care less" is incorrect even though a tremendous amount of people say that. "Lucked out" is idiomatically correct in the U.S. That's why there is no reason for it to bother anyone. It would be roughly comparable to using the word "out" in the expression "all decked out." There is another example I could use which automatically comes to mind, but it's a sexually explicit expression.

 

[two fingers]

Hot off the presses - Why your wrong to care about grammar

I dismiss the premise of the article. All rules and regulations are "made up". The vast majority of rules and regulations (read "laws") in society today are designed specifically to "protect us from ourselves". (I won't go down a political road other than to say that Darwin's laws are more effective and should be allowed to work.)

My point is, dismissing rules because "some guy made them up" is ridiculous. Grammar is necessary. Without it we would need translators for each other. And ain't nobody got time fuh dat.

 

[Tom Bomb]

I dismiss the premise of the article.[…]

I could care less

 

[Rocker949]

I could care less

My post was more directed toward the "lucked out" expression. I couldn't care less that people use "I could care less" incorrectly.

 

[Joe Nerve]

Anyone say effect and affect yet?

 

[Tom Bomb]

Regarding the maligned article, I was drawn solely to the error in the link - Why your wrong to care about grammar - and thought it fitting for this thread

Tiger's piece has some merit though: the 'Swift' decline, telegraphing constraints - not entirely unlike those of the twitterverse; the contrast between the rulers and their rules. But the focus, for me, is in these lines,

There will always be a need for language standards, particularly if you are a broadcast organisation. On an interpersonal level, though, it's healthy to interrogate where moral judgements come into play.

Descriptions of the English language as "under assault" or at risk of "decay" — be it from vowel retrenchment or even just rogue Americanisms — don't hold much water […].

As Lowth and Swift's writing show, the English language has been in crisis talks for literally centuries. Thus far we've managed to avoid the grammatical end of days.​

I love how Horton put it.

"I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful one-hundred percent!"

Along these lines, grammar helps immensely

 

[HaphAsSard]

Right. I need a nip from my flaks.

I'm not even saying you're not entitled to be irked by it. You are. Everyone has a personal language aesthetic. I'm only saying it's, in and of itself, no more deplorable than folks saying "agian", "cawfee", "sayin'", "mayun", "dahnce", "aboot" or every specific accent feature you can think of, including your own. Think of Dubliners saying "tin" for "thin": how is it any more excusable than "ax for"? It's not. Just another effect of sound changes which are very common cross-linguistically.

My personal contributions are "alternate" for "alternative" and "giving free reign". It's actually "free rein", folks.

I dismiss the premise of the article. All rules and regulations are "made up".

My point is, dismissing rules because "some guy made them up" is ridiculous. Grammar is necessary. Without it we would need translators for each other. And ain't nobody got time fuh dat.

Nope. What is necessary - nay, simply an inevitable fact - in human communication is grammar in the descriptive sense (the structure of what is actually said, be it "proper" or not): in a given speech community certain constructions are not allowed by the language as it has evolved and simply do not happen, unless it's for comedic effect (think Yoda syntax) or induced by slips of the tongue. Prescriptive grammar is superfluous: many languages manage without one just fine. On the other hand, what seems to be normal is that every speech community, however small, develops a prevalent taste: if a given language, spoken, say, in fifteen villages in New Guinea, has two dialects, chances are one of them is regarded as less prestigious than the other, even by many of its own speakers. Also, once prescriptive grammar and spelling rules (writing is also another accident in human communication, our species did without it for aeons) happen, they are to be reckoned with. They are far from set in stone though: invent a time machine, fetch a 17th century educated speaker to our time and watch him or her cringe at every other perfectly proper (modern) English expression of yours.

 

[bholder]

"cawfee"

How do you pronounce it? Or charging crows for singing?

 

[HaphAsSard]

How do you pronounce it? Or charging crows for singing?

Ha! Um, what I had in mind was how ever a New Yorker says that - I hadn't the farthest clue how to render it in spelling... ^^'

 

[hrodbert696]

My biggest gripe at work as an editor is people that can't form plurals or possessives correctly, or God help me, plural possessives.

I try to turn that stuff off when I'm online in a casual setting, but I still grit my teeth a bit over the misuse of its/it's. I shouldn't let it bother me.

Agreed. I see the same thing in student writing; the use of the apostrophe is a complete mystery. They just sprinkle them over the page randomly and hope that it's correct some of the time.

Who & whom

Also agreed. My favorite are the people who think that "whom" is somehow always the more correct and "prestigious" form (to borrow @HaphAsSard 's term) and use it exclusively regardless of syntax.

I dismiss the premise of the article. All rules and regulations are "made up". The vast majority of rules and regulations (read "laws") in society today are designed specifically to "protect us from ourselves". (I won't go down a political road other than to say that Darwin's laws are more effective and should be allowed to work.)

My point is, dismissing rules because "some guy made them up" is ridiculous. Grammar is necessary. Without it we would need translators for each other. And ain't nobody got time fuh dat.

Yes and no. I guess the thing is that with grammar rules, as with other bodies of rules in society, there are some that are meaningful and necessary to be able to communicate effectively, but then there are others that really are arbitrary. I gather others on the thread are better-studied linguists than me, but my understanding is that there was a tendency around the late 18th/early 19th century effort in English that was deliberately classist, to create a "proper" English grammar with a heap of fairly arbitrary rules that would distinguish the educated from the uneducated. It gave us the nonsense "rules" like not ending sentences with prepositions and that you have to say "I shall" and "they will" but not vice versa - as though anyone, ever, didn't understand what "I will go to town" means, or was confused by the person who asked "Who are you giving that to?" instead of "To whom are you giving that?" The rule exists purely to show that you had the privilege of going to school where they taught these rules.

I'm not even saying you're not entitled to be irked by it. You are. Everyone has a personal language aesthetic. I'm only saying it's, in and of itself, no more deplorable than folks saying "agian", "cawfee", "sayin'", "mayun", "dahnce", "aboot" or every specific accent feature you can think of, including your own. Think of Dubliners saying "tin" for "thin": how is it any more excusable than "ax for"? It's not. Just another effect of sound changes which are very common cross-linguistically.

My personal contributions are "alternate" for "alternative" and "giving free reign". It's actually "free rein", folks.


Nope. What is necessary - nay, simply an inevitable fact - in human communication is grammar in the descriptive sense (the structure of what is actually said, be it "proper" or not): in a given speech community certain constructions are not allowed by the language as it has evolved and simply do not happen, unless it's for comedic effect (think Yoda syntax) or induced by slips of the tongue. Prescriptive grammar is superfluous: many languages manage without one just fine. On the other hand, what seems to be normal is that every speech community, however small, develops a prevalent taste: if a given language, spoken, say, in fifteen villages in New Guinea, has two dialects, chances are one of them is regarded as less prestigious than the other, even by many of its own speakers. Also, once prescriptive grammar and spelling rules (writing is also another accident in human communication, our species did without it for aeons) happen, they are to be reckoned with. They are far from set in stone though: invent a time machine, fetch a 17th century educated speaker to our time and watch him or her cringe at every other perfectly proper (modern) English expression of yours.

Agree also. It's very much like music theory. Being conscious of it can enable you to express yourself musically and understand a piece of music better. But at the end of the day, if it sounds good, it is good. If people can clearly understand exactly what you're saying, there's little point in lecturing them over an arbitrary point of grammar.

I think one fair point as far as a language's utility goes is complexity. A person who doesn't have a deep knowledge of music theory can turn out a great blues or rock and roll hit, but they're unlikely to give you Bach or Miles Davis. Likewise, people generally communicate quite fine without needing precise grammar. But if you're trying to express a complex idea with multiple aspects and precise and nuanced relationships between the various concepts, you do need clear and precise grammar and syntax (and probably a fairly varied vocabulary) to do it. Otherwise you'll write, or say, gobbledygook.

 

[Lobster11]

I see the same thing in student writing; the use of the apostrophe is a complete mystery. They just sprinkle them over the page randomly and hope that it's correct some of the time.

 

[Downunderwonder]

Paragraphing is a fading art.

 

[5544]

Paragraphing is a fading art.

not useing a iz spelcheckir a dyng ary.

 

[two fingers]

Agreed. I see the same thing in student writing; the use of the apostrophe is a complete mystery. They just sprinkle them over the page randomly and hope that it's correct some of the time.



Also agreed. My favorite are the people who think that "whom" is somehow always the more correct and "prestigious" form (to borrow @HaphAsSard 's term) and use it exclusively regardless of syntax.



Yes and no. I guess the thing is that with grammar rules, as with other bodies of rules in society, there are some that are meaningful and necessary to be able to communicate effectively, but then there are others that really are arbitrary. I gather others on the thread are better-studied linguists than me, but my understanding is that there was a tendency around the late 18th/early 19th century effort in English that was deliberately classist, to create a "proper" English grammar with a heap of fairly arbitrary rules that would distinguish the educated from the uneducated. It gave us the nonsense "rules" like not ending sentences with prepositions and that you have to say "I shall" and "they will" but not vice versa - as though anyone, ever, didn't understand what "I will go to town" means, or was confused by the person who asked "Who are you giving that to?" instead of "To whom are you giving that?" The rule exists purely to show that you had the privilege of going to school where they taught these rules.



Agree also. It's very much like music theory. Being conscious of it can enable you to express yourself musically and understand a piece of music better. But at the end of the day, if it sounds good, it is good. If people can clearly understand exactly what you're saying, there's little point in lecturing them over an arbitrary point of grammar.

I think one fair point as far as a language's utility goes is complexity. A person who doesn't have a deep knowledge of music theory can turn out a great blues or rock and roll hit, but they're unlikely to give you Bach or Miles Davis. Likewise, people generally communicate quite fine without needing precise grammar. But if you're trying to express a complex idea with multiple aspects and precise and nuanced relationships between the various concepts, you do need clear and precise grammar and syntax (and probably a fairly varied vocabulary) to do it. Otherwise you'll write, or say, gobbledygook.

Well stated.

 

[two fingers]

I'm not even saying you're not entitled to be irked by it. You are. Everyone has a personal language aesthetic. I'm only saying it's, in and of itself, no more deplorable than folks saying "agian", "cawfee", "sayin'", "mayun", "dahnce", "aboot" or every specific accent feature you can think of, including your own. Think of Dubliners saying "tin" for "thin": how is it any more excusable than "ax for"? It's not. Just another effect of sound changes which are very common cross-linguistically.

My personal contributions are "alternate" for "alternative" and "giving free reign". It's actually "free rein", folks.


Nope. What is necessary - nay, simply an inevitable fact - in human communication is grammar in the descriptive sense (the structure of what is actually said, be it "proper" or not): in a given speech community certain constructions are not allowed by the language as it has evolved and simply do not happen, unless it's for comedic effect (think Yoda syntax) or induced by slips of the tongue. Prescriptive grammar is superfluous: many languages manage without one just fine. On the other hand, what seems to be normal is that every speech community, however small, develops a prevalent taste: if a given language, spoken, say, in fifteen villages in New Guinea, has two dialects, chances are one of them is regarded as less prestigious than the other, even by many of its own speakers. Also, once prescriptive grammar and spelling rules (writing is also another accident in human communication, our species did without it for aeons) happen, they are to be reckoned with. They are far from set in stone though: invent a time machine, fetch a 17th century educated speaker to our time and watch him or her cringe at every other perfectly proper (modern) English expression of yours.

Fair enough. That being said, just because a language should be allowed to "evolve", that shouldn't mean that we adopt a policy of using any version of English we choose as individuals. "You talk/write like you want to and I'll talk/write like I want to."

Many posts here lately have little or no punctuation. I can't read them. And, no, I do not accept that the poster is simply expressing himself in a way that "works for him".

Gradually evolving is one thing. Tossing the rules out the window because those rules are "arbitrary", and things will eventually change anyway, is (in my view) ridiculous.