Please state in which country your phrase tends to be used, what the phrase is, and what it should be.
Example:
In America, recently came across “back-petal”, instead of back-pedal. Also, still hearing “for all intensive purposes” instead of “for all intents and purposes”.
As a non native speaker, it really irks me when people mix up “brake” and “break”, specially among car enthusiasts.
Americans saying “I could care less” instead of “I couldn’t care less”.
I’ve seen so many attempts at justification for that one online but I can’t help but think that those people just don’t want to admit that they’re wrong.
“Could of…”
It’s “could have”!
Edit: I’m referring to text based things, like text and email. I can pretty much ignore the mispronouncing.
That’s a dialectal difference, not an error.
It’s very much not recommended, and generally seen as an error. But this article puts an asterisk on it.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/whats-worse-than-coulda
I am viscerally against this concept.
It’s one thing to include the spelling as a way to capture the phonetics of an accent or a dialect, entirely another to accept its use in writing when using a neutral voice.
If anything, because it’s so often just a misspelling I would avoid trying to use it as a phonetics thing just as a matter of style. At this point everybody would think I’m making a mistake instead of trying to mimic a way of speech in a way they’d never do with “coulda”.
With you on all counts.
Niche is pronounced neesh and not nitch
Depends on the context IMO
I suppose, if the context is if you prefer to be correct or not?
Lol “being correct” in a language. Take a course in linguistics.
How
If I had to take a guess I would venture that this person says “It’s not my nitch.” and “wow that product is very neesh.”
I swear I’ve met someone like this now that I think about it
You got it, dialects are a widely varying thing!
“Seen”.
Holy fuck, “seen”.I honestly think that using this word incorrectly has gotten worse over the last few years. Hearing someone say, “yeah, I seen her yesterday” just makes me want to punch the wall.
That’s actually correct usage in several dialects, including African American Vernacular English (AAVE) and Appalachian English (AE). In the US we are brought up to believe that the dialect used by upper middle class white people is “Standard English” and is “correct” but most linguists today recognize that this is an antiquated and problematic way of characterizing language. Each dialect has its own acceptable variations. You can make mistakes within a dialect, but the various dialects are not more or less “correct” based on how close they are to “Standard English.”
Seen is not correct english. The past tense of see is saw. Appalachain english is so horrendous I have to stop and translate at times. A bunch of them are not able to pronounce the letter ‘i’ correctly which is confusing and slows down communication.
Deal and dill are different words.
“Its”
As “its” is used to indicate possession by “it”, “its” is an exception to apostrophe-s construction as used to indicate possessive forms.
“It’s”, used as either the contractive form or the possessive form, does not require such an exception. The distinction between the contractive and possessive forms of “it’s” rarely/never introduces ambiguity; the distinction is clear from context.
The word “its” should be deprecated.
As “its” is used to indicate possession by “it”, “its” is an exception to apostrophe-s construction as used to indicate possessive forms.
Most, if not all, pronouns work that way though.
“The man’s arm” becomes “his arm” not “him’s arm”. “The woman’s arm” becomes “her arm” not “her’s arm”. Similarly, “the robot’s arm” becomes “its arm” not “it’s arm”.
I don’t really care if people use “it’s” instead of “its” , but I don’t think it’s a unique exception. The only thing that’s unique is that it is pronounced the same way as if you tacked an apostrophe and an s on the end. If we used the word “hims” instead of “his”, I’m sure people would start putting an apostrophe in there too.
“The man’s arm” becomes “his arm” not “him’s arm”.
Similarly, “the robot’s arm” becomes “its arm” not “it’s arm”
But, “the man” you referred to does not become “hi”. “The robot” you mentioned does become “it”.
Right, and for pronouns you don’t just put apostrophe s after. So you don’t make “it” possessive by adding apostrophe s just like you don’t add apostrophe s to “he” or “him” to make it possessive.
If you treat the pronoun “it” like a regular (non-pronoun) noun instead of like other pronouns, that is itself an exception.
I have a much better plan: deprecate the stupid apostrophe for all possessives! It always looks semi-illiterate to me, like the 15th-century Dutch printsetters weren’t hot on English grammar (not sure, but I bet this is in fact how it happened - German possessives manage fine without the apostrophe).
In other news, the possessive apostrophe is now allowed as part of a name (Rita’s Restaurant) in German…
Yes I heard about that! The illogical abomination that is English spelling and grammar is going to destroy the world’s languages one by one!
Irregardless is just a synonym for Regardless now and I staunchly oppose anyone who tries to correct it.
“Flammable” and “Inflammable” are synonymous, so…
Yeah but “irregardless” is like “un-non-flammable”
How about “irregardful”?
I like it. Not unbad at all.
To “step foot on”. I don’t care that millennial journalists are now sullying the literal NYT with this, it’s WRONG. It’s to set foot on. To SET foot on.
“Set foot” might be better established (and sound better), but “step foot” is not new.
Yeah yeah I know. But “set” (fun fact: it’s the word with the most meanings in the Oxford English Dictionary) is the transitive form of “sit”, so it’s more grammatical, more elegant and shorter than “step”. Which obviously comes from a mishearing by someone who didn’t read books, yet people will still get indignant and claim that it’s somehow better! I need to lie down. ;)
I like your comment for the most part, but:
obviously comes from a mishearing by someone who didn’t read books
This is assumptive and prescriptive. The link I sent demonstrates that it’s been used extensively and for a long time by people who not only read books, but write books. I’m on board that “set foot” is the better phrase and likely to be the earlier one, but trying to dictate which is correct is - respectfully - a fool’s errand.
Yes yes I know all that. Prescriptivism is bad, tut tut!, a serious linguist only describes language, etc etc.
But whether it was 400 years ago or yesterday, to me personally it’s thunderingly obvious that “step” comes from a mishearing, all while being inferior in every way. It’s even tautological, since the “foot” is already implied in the word “step”. It’s like saying “He was hand-clutching a bag”. One is short, logical, and respects grammatical convention. The other… isn’t and doesn’t.
Occasionally great new coinings come about from mishearings (can’t think of one right now but they exist). This is not one of them.
