What mis-stated phrases or words do you feel still need to be corrected (online or in person) in 2025?

submitted by SLVRDRGN@lemmy.world
edited

lemmy.world/pictrs/image/0772ce47-1c7b-49e0-8a2…

What mis-stated phrases or words do you feel still need to be corrected (online or in person) in 2025?

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".

283

Log in to comment

462 Comments

Americans saying "I could care less" instead of "I couldn't care less".

, edited

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.

I say “I couldn’t care less”, but I used to think that “I couldn’t care less” was used in context where someone seemed like they don’t care and they give that as a snarky remark, implying that they can care even less.

, edited

Obligatory David Mitchell

I also like the bonus "hold down the fort" at the end.

Because as you know, it's an inflatable hover fort and, once relieved of my weight, it might float off into the sky.

Came here to share this one too

I could care less, but then I wouldn't care at all...

Idk why hoes mad at you this is the cleverest way to mix up the saying while keeping it's intent.

I care a tiny bit. I could care less, but not easily.

I say “I could care less” and then follow it up with, “but I’d be dead”. Correcting “I could care less” is dumb because you literally can care less about lots of stuff, but saying the phrase indicates you just don’t really care.

I agree that this is very vaguely irritating, but for me it only differs by one sound and a vowel quality

"I couldn't care less" [aɪ̯.kɘ̃ʔ.kɛɹ.lɛs] vs "I could care less" [aɪ̯.kɘ.kɛɹ.lɛs]

Doesn't this make sense if someone says it in a sarcastic manner?

, edited

"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.

, edited

I think they just heard could've or meant to say could've

That's a dialectal difference, not an error.

I mean no? The have in could have is pronounced the same as of, but at least AFAIK no dialect explicitly says could of. Tell the other person to not mesh the two words together and they'll say have. I think.

Minor nit pick from my experience. If the word is written out "could have" I enunciate the entire word. I only pronounce the contraction "could've" as "could of". And vice versa when dictating.

Not when written

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.

Also they're/their, your/you're, here/hear, to/too.

It's definitely a mistake, but I think it has slipped by because spell check wouldn't have a reason to mark it, and not everyone uses grammar check, so they think it's correct to spell it out by the sound of the contraction.

Please state what country your phrase tends to be used

Please state in which country your phrase tends to be used...

Casey Point

This reply deserves to be put on a peddle stool

Touché

Worst Case Ontario

Get two birds stoned at once!

Reminds me of "Worse case scenario"

Worser cast scenario.

Haahahhaahahhahahahahaahaah

Thanks! I'll be using that from now on.

, edited

English/US - seeing “would of” instead of “would’ve”or “would have”. This one bugs me the most.

The thing is that, at least in the UK, many people also *say* "of". You might say that in quick speech it's not possible to tell between "would've" and "would of" which is probably where this misspelling came from, but I once was talking to my English friend and after he said something quickly, I asked if he just said that "she would see it?", to which he replied "she would OF seen it" putting a lot of emphasis on that "of", making it clear that he wasn't aware that it should be "have".

Did you mean "would of"

Ugh yes. Autocorrect kept fixing it over and over. Must’ve changed it again when I hit post.

Yeah, must of.

, edited

"Chomping at the bit". It's *champing* at the bit. Horses champ.

"Get ahold of". It's "get hold of" or, if you must, "get a hold of"

"I'm doing good". No, Superman does good. You're doing well.

“Chomping at the bit”. It’s champing at the bit. Horses champ.

Wow, this is the first time I've ever heard of this one! Good job to you and this thread!

You do things *on* purpose or *by* accident, you don't do anything *on* accident.

I will follow you into battle.

*onto* battle

*unto* battle

Outto battle.

For non native English speakers (such as myself), these things can get tricky. It can be difficult to know which preposition is right especially when in relation to non-tangible concepts such as time, accidents, or purpose. Please do correct them though, people eventually learn with repetition.

Look, I've been speaking English for work and pleasure for thirty years now and I'm here to tell everybody that prepositions in English are arbitrary conventions and it's all mostly fair game.

Unless you are trying to precisely identify the position of an object relative to something else, the "correct" preposition is a few years of consensus away from changing.

Our language is the offcuts of several others stitched together, to make some sort of coherent garbage.

Never feel bad about getting something wrong - most of the natives butcher it in their daily lives without a second thought.

The accents are wild too. I feel so sorry for new speakers that are confronted with Scots. The further north you go, the more unintelligible it gets to the basic English speaker.

I'm from Angus originally (not the very top, but close enough), but moved to Wales. There was a period of time where I could understand everyone, but found myself not understood by others.

Eventually my own accent settled into some sort of "Scwelsh" that works, but it's difficult for listeners to place me geographically.

Have a few bonus Welshisms for your trouble:

*"I do do that I do"* - I also do this

*Whose coat is that jacket?* - Who owns this coat?

*Now in a minute* - Could be immediately. Could actually be in a minute. Could be an hour from now.

I definitely understand that. But none of this thread is trying to hold non native speakers' feet to the fire.

I hope you know of that phrase. I just realized that's a saying that might not translate.

You're right, English is dumb, but I'd say 95% of the time it's native English speakers I hear getting this particular one wrong.

Sometimes I do things off purpose.

*This*, I can accept.

... or by purpose.

I do things *with* purpose.

There is no fucking s at the end of "anyway"

I thought that was the case with "toward", but apparently "towards" is fine too. Depends on where you are which is more common.

Pretty sure it's "Feral Intensive Porpoises"

Former colleague used to say "for all intensive purposes"every few sentences.

"For all intensive porpoises" is the one that really annoys me.

They're *dolphins*, not porpoises. Fuck, get your cetaceans *right*.

Lol I believe it's "for all intents and doplhins."

[cetacean needed]

For all intensive dolphins

Feral intensive dolphins

For all intensive porpoises, we should create a care-free environment.

This thread peaks my interest.

I hope my words piqued someone else’s interests more.

Oh this one's *peak*

"Shoot that guy when he peaks the corner again"

This is peek Lemmy right here.

In Everquest, there was a Gnome NPC in North Ro at the docks where you went to Velious that said "peaked your interest." Always bugged me.

Idiots misspelling lose as loose drives me up the wall. Even had someone defend themselves claiming it's just the common spelling now and to accept it. There, their, and they're get honorable mention. Nip it in the butt as opposed to correctly nipping it in the bud.

double oo for loose so not tight, lose for the one that has lost one.

Double oo so its a oooo?

Why not, fine for me

Discreet vs Discrete used to crack me up on dating sites. All those guys looking for discrete hookups - which kind of makes sense but I am sure is not what they meant.\

I literally ground my teeth today because I got an email from a customer service person saying "You're package was returned to us". Not a phishing email with an intentional misspelling, a legitimate email for a real order I made. If it is your JOB to send messages like this they ought not have misspellings.

So the context matters to me. I am more tolerant of spelling errors and mis-phrasing in everyday life than in a professional communication.

they ought not have misspellings

Wouldn't it be "ought not to"?

Why no! In the negative (ought not) you don't need the to.

Neat. That gives me old British author vibes

Irregardless

Irregardless.

Without regardless

Without without regard

With regard

I'm going to end my emails with irregardless and see what happens. What's the worst that can happen?

"Irregardless, MajorMajormajormajor."

, edited

I'm writing with regards to the issue of...

That's very friendly and I'll be sure to forward your regards...🙄

This is literally a restaurant near me. Quite good one too

affect vs effect.

the usual case for effect is as a noun, and for affect, as a verb.

Just to clarify the exceptions to the general rule:

effect as a verb: to cause or bring about

*This policy effects change.*

affect as a noun: a display of emotion

*She greeted us with warm affect.*

There are three uses for each, intertwined.\

Good luck.

, edited

I'm only aware of affect as verb or noun and effect as verb or noun. What are the other two?

Edit: Haha, I can see why people get confused now. I just looked at the dictionary page for effect, and it's hilariously long and complicated: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/effect

Personally I would jsut deprecate the word "affect" entirely. Same with "inflammable" and "cleanse."

"The weather can affect/effect your mood"

Both correct. Both mean the same thing.

imo, for this to mean the same thing "mood" has to change meanings in between.

While the second one is somewhat correct, they don't mean the same thing.

"The weather can affect your mood." -> The weather can change your mood, i.e., you had one mood before, and another mood after the weather affected it.

"The weather can effect your mood." -> The weather can bring your mood into being, i.e., you had no mood before, but you had one after the weather effected it.

This is the one that drives me crazy when I see it.

I've been told which is which 50 times and in 12 seconds I'm gonna have no fucking clue again so I'll just pretend effect is the only option.

Here's one mnemonic l: most of the time effect is a noun, which use articles a/the. "The" ends with e and effect starts with e, so "the effect" lines up the e's.

Or you could try RAVEN: remember affect verb, effect noun

I could couldn't care less

Hold down the fort

The proof is in the pudding of the pudding is in the eating

elon musk Twat

"Hold down the fort" and "the proof is in the pudding" is how those phrases are currently used in the US, regardless of their origins, and they still make sense. "Could care less" is objectively wrong unless you're trying to indicate that you do kinda care.

The last correction is accurate.

Sometimes I like to be extra specific about how it is physically impossible for anyone to care less than I do about

To add to that

twitter twatter

x twatter

“Toe the party line” To align with the interests of a political party; to get in line with the agenda of the leader of a political party

“Tow the party line” Something to do with tugboats

TIL

I always heard people use it as a synonym for pushing the envelope (like you're walking right up to the line and prodding it with your toe), and only found out the "falling in line" meaning later. I still see tons of that usage today, and I wonder where it came from.

My pet peeve is when people use "then" but they actually meant to use "than". I think it might be mainly due to flaws in predictive text on phone keyboards though.

Fuck yes. Most annoying mistake in English. Seems to have sharply risen during the last few years

More then a few made the mistake back than, too.

It's one of those ones that bother me too as a non-native speaker, they're such different words from each other when you learn them more from reading than oral exposure. The they're/their/there trio is another one where I can't fathom how people have issues distinguishing them.

Very well said. Those all bug me for that same reason. Very different meanings.

Alot is not a word.

Also, the vanishing use of countable quantities: they are all amounts nowadays.

We can *make* it a word though :)

Yeah, words aren't determined by dictionary committees or English teachers. They are determined by people using and understanding them.

All languages (other than ones designed deliberately, like Esperanto, Klingon, and Tolkien's elvish) started from the same root and diverged when populations reduced regular contact and all words and grammars were made up along the way.

Ah, this is very interesting and good to know, thanks. I speak another language where a word very similar to alot is actually a verb.

There's allot in English, too. Which means something like to assign a quantity or share to someone or something.

Ah, thank you! That's what I was actually thinking of, but then I thought I was mistaken.

Niche is pronounced neesh and not nitch

I heard Nice things about France

I heard things about niche, France.

I've heard this one like 3 times in the last month on youtube and it bothers me a lot

Depends on the context IMO

How

, edited

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!

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.

You should google the word "dialect" and see where it takes you.

To search results about the word dialect

You were supposed to keep clicking.

Instructions unclear. Am now enrolled in a course on pronunciation

It's a start. Hopefully it's not for Vietnamese.

Neesh is actually the much newer pronunciation apparently, TIL.

What do you base that on?
According to the pronunciations on Wiktionary, nitch is Californian

\NICH\ is the more common one and the older of the two pronunciations. It is the only pronunciation given for the word in all English dictionaries until the 20th century, when \NEESH\ was first listed as a pronunciation variant in Daniel Jones's English Pronouncing Dictionary (1917). \NEESH\ wasn’t listed as a pronunciation in our dictionaries until our 1961 Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, and it wasn’t entered into our smaller Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary until 1993. Even then, it was marked in the Collegiate as a pronunciation that was in educated use but not considered acceptable until 2003.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/niche

Aisle. As much as I would love to take a boat to the breakfast food isle (a.k.a. island), I'm pretty sure that I need to look in the breakfast aisle at the grocery store.

This one never gets me anywhere, but “begging the question” is actually a logical fallacy where you assume the result and use that as the basis of your argument. Otherwise, it *raises* the question.

, edited

The same goes for the exception that proves the rule. People use it as a magic spell that does away with unwanted evidence but it's self explanatory. No parking on Fridays means you can park every other day.

, edited

That's actually a post-hoc rationalization; in the original phrase, "proves" has a meaning closer to "tests". But, yes, people use this one all the time to justify being wrong either way.

, edited

.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule

and how is that post-hoc?

If I claimed I didn't get a ticket that day because I wore my lucky socks that would be post-hoc. I don't see how that applies here.

There's an exception to every rule (except that one)

How do you feel about other words or phrases that have different meanings in specific fields vs common use? Like a scientific theory is very different from your buddy's theory about what the movie you watched meant. Since beg is a stronger word than raise, some statements scream out for questions in response, while others merely give rise to some further need for clarification.

, edited

Using "racking" instead of the correct "wracking" in "wracking my brain". Not very common, but it annoys me... But not as much as "could of"... That is the worst, just stop it!

This is online and in person in Canada.

About 1 in 3 posters here say “loose” when they mean “lose”

, edited

That triggers me lol

Don't forget:

brake vs break

waist vs waste

Using weary/wary interchangeably. I am tired of people not being aware of the difference.

Also, "decimated". The original usage is to reduce by one tenth. It didn't mean something was nearly or totally annihilated, but thanks to overuse, now it does.

That “decimated” ship has sailed. The common usage changed long ago so getting pedantic about the original meaning does not help.

We didn’t have internet then but we do now. This is exactly what we need. It’s good to have flexibility for new words, for slang, even new meanings but let’s make sure mistakes don’t change the meaning of things

The word internet refers to a network of networks and the Internet is the world wide network of networks. Like many words that require the use of a Shift key, most people use internet instead of Internet. Forgoing the use of periods is becoming quite common as well.

Autocorrect is actually less convenient for punctuation. I’ll fight autocorrect when it substitutes random words but it can have my periods

Are you also upset that "December" doesn't refer to the tenth month anymore?

Yes. It’s infuriating that the months called “Seventh Month,” “Eighth Month,” “Ninth Month,” and “Tenth Month” are months 9-12.

Stupid January and February fucking everything up…

I hear 'weary' used in place of 'wary', I don't think I've come across the reverse. Drives me crazy though.

I mean, having one in ten of your fellow soldiers murdered by their own commander is pretty horrific, and I think that's the spirit of its modern usage.

Reduce TO one tenth?

Nope, reduced by 10%, leaving you with 90% of the original quantity.

Ah, TIL, I thought it was a reduction TO 10%, but I see you are correct!

"You can't have your cake and eat it" The older form was flipped: "you can't eat your cake and have it" They both can mean about the same, but the older form makes it much clearer - if you've eaten your cake, you no longer have it. But you could have your cake, then eat it.

Thank you! I've always heard the former and never felt it quite made sense. Now I understand why.

Reminds me of that story where a fellow on the lake was chilly and tried to start a small fire in the boat, but it just burned a hole through it and he had to swim to shore.

Just goes to show you...

"You can't have your kayak and heat it, too."

Mr Kaczynski? I thought you were dead?

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.

, edited

Step foot I'm stuck!

Wh... What are you doing, step-toe?

"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.\

Irregardless

"Most best"

It's more bestester

"funner"

, edited

I'm still confused that reckless driving causes wrecks.

This is a good one.

This is what is called a lonely negative. It's where we only have the negative version of a word. This could be because the original word fell out of use or we stole the negative word from another language without stealing the positive.

"Reck" meant something like "care" - it has nothing to do with "wreck".

Another good example is "disgust," which we got from French. Anyone familiar with French, Italian or Spanish will probably recognize the verb "gustar" (or something similar).

LOL yes the reckless example was tongue-in-cheek. Similar example is inflammable, which sounds like it should mean non-flammable but came from "enflame".

As an English opposite to disgust how about gusto? Same Spanishtroot.

That would gusto me very much.

I always liked this situation with “uncouth”. Why don’t we use the word “couth” - I tried to bring it into usage but it didn’t stick!

Deleted by author

reply
1

I don't generally correct people's spelling or pronunciation but something I've noticed occurring more and more lately is people using "loose" when they mean "lose" and it gets under my skin for unknown reasons

It's because your skin is too lose, it's easy to get under it.

It's a loose loose situation.

Don't forget that sale/sell constantly get mixed up.

On accident, it is by accident. 🤬

It's always going to be the "of" people. Its "would have", "should have" etc and not "would of".

, edited

Also, if you wish you had done something differently then it's "wish I had" not "wish I would have".

Wished'I'd've

Would’ve

No. Just use your words and enunciate.

Interchangeable then/than, or using 'on accident'.

Big 🤡 energy.

What's wrong with the ladder?

The wrungs are broken.

, edited

Surely there not all broken?

Their seriously broken, and don't call me Shirley.

*latter

I'm glad some people got my joke, but seriously, what is wrong with "on accident"?

Well I find it useful to think of “by accident” as the equivalent to “by way of an accident” the accident was the way that the thing happened; there is a causal relationship there. Compare that with “On accident”, well, what does it mean to be on an accident? It sounds like a great way to get your shoes dirty.

I love when people try to justify all the preposition use in grammar, like we don't have countless examples of it being completely arbitrary. Like why don't we "watch at" a movie like we look at a painting, much like listen to vs hear. Or why do verbs with similar meanings take different prepositions, like decide on vs opt for (vs choose without a prep).

Those mis-stated phrases are called eggcorns. They’re a fascinating contributor to the evolution of language.

The term egg corn (later contracted into one word, eggcorn) was coined by professor of linguistics Geoffrey Pullum in September 2003 in response to an article by Mark Liberman on the website Language Log, a group blog for linguists.[5] In his article, Liberman discussed the case of a woman who had used the phrase egg corn for acorn, and he noted that this specific type of substitution lacked a name. Pullum suggested using egg corn itself as a label.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggcorn

Ah! I'll read this over dinner.

Bone apple tea! :p

"flush it out" instead of "flesh it out" when designing a plan

Sometimes you just need to send some dogs into that meeting and shoot the first plan that comes flying out.

"Let's flush out this design."

"You got it!" [Slowly readies a grenade.]

, edited

I, too, like to abort all my ideas onto the page...

That one drives me nuts too. "Coming down the pike" too. I'm not even sure that one is incorrect, I just dislike how overused and generic it sounds in the office

I think coming down the pike might be animal cruelty

Please explain

A pike is a type of fish and I was making a crude joke.

Haha ok I forgot there's a fish by that name

, edited

The only one that continues to bug me is using "an" instead of "a" before a word that starts with a consonant sound. I especially dislike the phrase "an historic" (as in "it was an historic victory") which has bafflingly been deemed acceptable. Unless you're a cockney, it should be "a historic". The rule is to use "an" if the word starts with a vowel sound, and "a" otherwise. IMO.

I’ve mentioned this here before but in the UK “an historic” is written because we are slowly dropping the letter “h” at the front of words from pronunciation. UK people often say “an ‘istoric” so it kinda makes sense… but looks clumsy.

It also makes it more clear your not saying "ahistoric" or "ahistorical"

That’s a good point.

by [deleted]

honour, hour, homage, honest, heir

I follow Jeremy Clarkson and intentionally always use the wrong one. There’s an horse. A apple.

Ditto.

Well hell, I use "an" before historic, every time.

It’s fine if you drop the letter “h” when you speak - like I do. It then becomes “an ‘istoric” and sounds correct.

I believe this comes from people trying to show off their education. Traditionally, words with a french descent were pronounced with a silent H. So for example hospital (from French hôpital) is an hospital, where hound (from Germanic hund) is a hound.
This is pretty much deprecated these days and anyone enforcing it is beyond grammar nazi, but it's interesting to know the pattern.
Source: my secondary school English teacher.

it sounds like yunicorn, so it's a unicorn, not an unicorn.

Ah, thank you! This one bothers me too. I've seen even more blatant misuses in writing, even in professional writing, but unfortunately can't recall any examples.

It's "I didn't taste it, let alone finish it." not "I didn't finish it, let alone taste it.". Not those exact words, of course. People get it wrong more often than not IME. The wrong version never makes sense, and it always trips me up.

Oh man, "let alone" is severely misused. Good one!

Don't think I've seen that myself, but that would be pretty fucking annoying for sure.

Idk if this counts as a phrase, but on the internet, people talk about their pets crossing the rainbow bridge when they die. That's not how the rainbow bridge poem goes. Pets go to a magnificent field when they die. They are healed of all injury and illness. When you die, they find you in the field and you cross the bridge together. It's much sweeter the way it was written than the way people use it.

I did not know this, thanks!

, edited

Some weirdos write decades as possessive. Writing "90's" implies that there's a 90 that owns something.

It's not a decade thing. People do that anytime they're not sure if it's a "s situation" or a "ies situation", or confusing with some other plural problem.

, edited

I feel like the vast majority of people online use "yay or nay" instead of "yea or nay".

by [deleted]

Because English is inconsistent and ass

, edited

Online in general: using "reductio ad absurdum" as a fallacy.

It's a longstanding logical tool. Here's an example of how it works: let's assume you can use infinity as a number. In that case, we can do:

∞ + 1 = ∞

And:

∞ - ∞ = 0

Agreed? If so, then:

∞ - ∞ + 1 = ∞ - ∞

And therefore:

1 = 0

Which is absurd. If we agree that all the logical steps to get there are correct, then the original premise (that we can use infinity as a number) must be wrong.

It's a great tool for teasing out incorrect assumptions. It has never been on any academic list of fallacies, and the Internet needs to stop saying otherwise. It's possible some other fallacy is being invoked while going through an argument, but it's not reductio ad absurdum.

Or in math you'll talk about approaching infinity, that is just some arbitrarily large number.

, edited

Well if we're going to be talking about logical fallacies, I feel like the string of arguments that you made there is a category error. Infinity isn't exactly a number, it's more of a philosophical concept than anything else. I would argue that trying to subtract Infinity from Infinity is illogical and kind of silly, but it wouldn't be a reductio ad absurdum as you put it, but instead a category error.

An absurdist argument might be more like, if I have one cat I can trade it for one dog. Therefore infinite cats can be traded for infinite dogs. This is obviously absurd, because infinite cats don't exist, unfortunately.

, edited

The way read it they were using it as an example where absurdity makes sense to poke a hole in the logic that infinity can be used as a number.

That's fair.

Using loose instead of lose.

I'm losing friends for loosing dogs on useless losers' loose use of lose and loose

In the USA and other English-speaking countries: weary =/= wary.

For example, I'll see someone write something like: "I am weary of the campfire because it is so hot"

You aren't tired of the campfire! You are wary of it!

People using 'yourself' and 'myself' instead of 'you' and 'me' when trying to sound formal or posh. You don't sound formal or posh, you sound ill-educated.

I remember once being on a call with some customer support guy who didn't seem to even be aware that words "you" and "me" exist. My favourite part of the conversation was when he said "let myself put yourself on hold while I ask a senior colleague to clarify this for myself".

were they speaking hiberno-english by any chance?

No, sounded southern, maybe Devon or thereabouts.

Have you a merry little Christmas, commoner.

Forsooth, methinks you are aright.

I really hate it when us media uses the word "ouster".

For example:

https://www.kpcw.org/ski-resorts/2025-01-27/vail-resorts-shareholder-calls-for-ouster-of-ceo-cfo-and-rob-katz

"Vail Resorts shareholder calls for ouster of CEO, CFO and Rob Katz"

They mean to use the word here as "removal", but "oust" is also a verb and "ouster" would be "one who ousts".

So, calls for the ouster of the CEO/CFO to do what?

I think the ouster is supposed to be the event that results in ousting. But it's so redundant it's not funny. Removal would be for much better.

, edited

What I really hate is when people don’t capitalize the abbreviation US, because it makes me think they’re saying “us” as in “we,” or “oui” as the French like to say, no?

😀

I gotta correct myself when I do it because I'm not from the US so us and US aren't even the same people.

OK, since you mentioned the media, putting "gate" after any government scandal. Nixon's scandal was involving the Watergate Office Building.

They could just use "ousting"

Yup!

"The proof is in the pudding."

The actual phrase is: "The proof of the pudding is in the eating."

It means that your dessert might look and smell delicious, but if you fucked up the recipe, say by using salt instead of sugar, then it will taste bad. You won't know for sure until you eat it. So, a plan might look good on paper but be a disaster when implemented.

"The proof is in the pudding" doesn't mean anything.

Unless you bake some incriminating evidence into it.

I feel that this one is slightly pedantic because, strictly speaking, "the proof is in the pudding" is also technically correct. After all, the proof of the pudding is in the pudding. Yes, the more correct form is much more clear as to what it means, but that doesn't invalidate the mis-phrasing.

So weird, I just heard this phrase in its entirety from Dr. Smith, of the classic Lost in Space series.

It's such a goofy show but the dialogue can be shockingly eloquent.

"Proof is in the pudding" always got to me too... Thought it was some old weird Baker-farmer-ism or something Lol.

, edited

"If worse comes to worst..."

In British English, they often say the phrase as "if worst comes to worst," which is based on archaic grammar.

In the US, there's a mix of verb tenses. The only one that make sense in this day and age is "if what is worse comes to be the worst," or "if worse comes to worst."

This point can be argued, but I will be severely wounded (maybe not so much as dying) defending this hill.

i feel like we should be able to beat the living shit out of people intentionally spreading political misinformation.

Like im sorry, this may not meet instance rules, or whatever, but like, holy fuck, the amount of shit you can just *lie* about, without people asking question, kneecaps should've happened years ago, what the fuck are we doing bro.

Hmmm, I don't know. Maybe if you could first prove that it was political misinformation. While yes, there is way too much actual political mis/disinformation online nowadays, I also see on a daily basis people online claiming this when it's really not. In other words, throwing the baby out with the bath water.

i think you should be required to demonstrate proof of your claim first, anything short of that is a failure in communication.

People should not feel comfortable saying things they have no idea the validity of. You're not far from being completely illiterate at that point. Have some decency and don't fucking say it.

"per se" (US) - people generally use it as "exactly" or "specifically", e g. "It's not circular, per se, more like a rounded rectangle". However, it actually means "in and of itself". I have a coworker that misuses this one constantly (and also spells it incorrectly) and it's become a huge pet peeve.

Huh TIL I've been using per se wrong. Thanks stranger!

Because of South Park, I occasionally end sentences with that phrase, per se.

What entitlement means vs false sense of entitlement.

I tell people they are entitled to their rights and have an entitlement to their social security money for example, and they get offended thinking I mean "false sense of entitlement" instead.

I hear "gaslighting" misused all of the time. It doesn't mean trying to persuade someone or just lying.

Do you get confused when someone tells you to eat shit as well?

"per say" vs "per se"

Also, the way most people use "per se" and "it begs the question" drives me crazy.

Oh I haven't heard that use. That is gross.

“Saying the quiet part out loud.”

Saying things out loud *is how you say them*.

It’s “saying the quiet part loud.”

wow this is too pedantic even for this thread

I think you might be on the wrong side of the argument here, as others are pointing out the 'quiet' part of that sentence isn't meant to be low volume, but more along the lines of secret or unspoken, and the 'out loud' part doesn't mean volume, it means 'spoken'.

If it helps, it's like when someone says something they were thinking and goes 'oh no, did i say that out loud?!'.... They're not specifically worried about how loudly they said it, but that they said it audibly at all when they meant to only think it.

Quiet can mean either low volume or silent. So it's saying the silent part out loud-- there's no contradiction here.

Nope, quiet doesn’t mean silent on the context of verbal expression (saying something). Saying something at all indicates an audiblity. Even if that wasn’t the case, the second half clears this up for us if the distinction is between what is normal and “out loud,” then the only natural conclusion is that the alternative, expected method is silent and inaudible. Were this to be accurate it confounds the overall message and renders it illogical.

Be better, people.

The quiet (silent) part isn't normally said. That's why the meaning is "you're saying all the parts out loud together, even the parts that are supposed to be silent/quiet". There was no indication that the "quiet part" was a verbal expression before the "out loud" modifier.

Definition # 4 is the applicable one here.

When multiple people politely point out that you're wrong, perhaps digging in your heels and telling them to be better isn't the right call.

You're wrong. In this expression, the "quiet" part means the "unsaid" part. If someone tells you a secret, and they say "please keep that quiet", it means "don't tell anyone". If you're driving in the car and the kids are being rowdy in the back seat, you would say "keep quiet back there", it means "shut your mouth".

To say the quiet part out loud, means "you said the thing you intended to keep unsaid".

No, if you’re going to do mental gymnastics at least have some that are in the realm of possibility.

, edited

I think it is common to distinguish between whispering something and saying it out loud or aloud. Like if you say something private in a theatre louder than meant, your date might say, “Shh, you said that out loud.” Otherwise “out loud” would have no place at all as “say” alone would cover this meaning.

You’re right about the saying, but I think that explains the malapropism.

Nope

So, can you clarify the difference between “to say something” and “to say something out loud”?

Coming from the other direction - when someone ackshullys a parson, but the person was using the phrase correctly.

I had to explain to someone online today that "liminal space" had multiple meanings, and it didn't only refer to spaces you transition through, and the spooky "liminal space aesthetic" is a valid and coherent use of the word "liminal" and the term "liminal space"

, edited

On the US one thing is different *from* another, not *than*. One thing differs *from* another. It's different *from* the other thing.

Although in the UK it's "different to" for some reason.

I’m not going to be picky about that when I see way too often that one thing is different then another

I always thought it was "this differs from that" and "it's different than that".

No, people treat "different" like a comparative adjective - bigger than, smaller than, faster than, different "than". When an adjective comes from a verb it uses the same preposition as the verb, You comply *with* a law and are compliant *with* the law. You adhere *to* a tradition and are adherent *to* the tradition. Your phone differs *from* mine and is different *from* mine.

That makes sense, thanks!

Even outside the US, I think from is more common.

, edited

Oh my goodness, someone pointed this out on Tumblr years ago, but it desperately needs repeating:

Dear English Language Fanfic Writers,

  • Wanton: an unrestrained desire, usually of a sexual nature.

  • Wonton: a type of dumpling found in Chinese and East Asian cuisine.

I wanton for wontons

This entire thread is /c/badlinguistics

I really wish there were enough lemmings to maintain ling or grammar communities here. It's one thing I really miss from reddit

I agree, and I love your username.

I think this thread is evidence that there are enough people for this. The problem for niche communities on Lemmy is still the front page feed algorithms, none of which appear to properly surface interesting posts from your less active subscribed communities. This is not a criticism on Lemmy's developers, who I am very thankful to for developing it. I think it must just be a difficult algorithm to get right.

Algorithm stuff aside, I'm not sure this thread is a good indication of how much can be contributed to linguistics or grammar comms. Plenty of people are in here airing pet peeves, but that's never a good indication of actual interest in language-- like how r/grammar doesn't allow pet peeve threads or simple prescriptivism without also providing a discussion of the grammar mechanics. Low effort stuff used to get removed with a recommendation to try subs like r/grammarnazi, but that community (now it's private so I can't check details, but I remember it being kind of dead) never had much content specifically because people who just want to make pet peeve threads don't have any interest in actual discussion.

There already are a couple comms that don't get much traffic, so maybe if the algo were better we'd see an uptick of the linguistic minded lemmings over there, but it's a pretty niche interest so I'm not holding out much hope. Looks like the most "active" with a couple posts a month is [email protected] (anything more grammar focused looks dead).

That's a possibility too, but we'll never know for sure until the front page subscribed algorithms are improved.

I hear the algo's a big problem with loops and mastodon (?) also, but I don't really do the tiktok or twitter style SMS so I'm not very familiar. With all the shit going on with the oligarchs and right wing world governments these days, it'll be interesting to see if the fediverse can sustain itself.

I'm not entirely against it, but I'm amused by how common it is to put "whole" inside of "another", making it "a whole nother". Can anyone give any other use of the word "nother"?

Maybe it works like fucking

A-fucking-nother

A-whole-nother

people do generally fuck holes so that checks out

It's other, another is a whole other issue... heh

That's called an infix, like a prefix or suffix, but, y'know, in. Some other languages use them often, but it's just a few fun examples in English.

, edited

Also called tmesis, which includes (as was also mentioned below in this thread), abso-fucking-lutely

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tmesis

A nother one!

Q: "Did she do that?"
A: "No it was nother"

The "positive anymore" is a vile grammatical abomination spawning from the Midwest US.

Normally using the word anymore has a negative tone to it (I don't eat meat anymore) . Except when used in this manner which seems to be when they should instead be saying currently or nowadays.

I find it viscerally unappealing.

Can you give an example

"Everything is expensive anymore"

It's gross, I know.

Gosh, *I had no idea this was happening.*

I envy you.

Irregardless is just a synonym for Regardless now and I staunchly oppose anyone who tries to correct it.

"Flammable" and "Inflammable" are synonymous, so...

"Literally" and "literally" are antonyms.

Thank you, satan.

Yeah but "irregardless" is like "un-non-flammable"

How about "irregardful"?

I like it. Not unbad at all.

, edited

I always think of that one in the same sense of famous and infamous. My brain accepts that only as inflammable things are REALLY flammable.

And even then my brain needs a second to recover from the 180 I mentally have to do to make that make sense.

You should only use the weird in its full context:

Not without a lack of disregard

, edited
  • literally. There's the door.
  • 'emails'. Like 'traffics'. Learn why.
  • 'startup' vs 'start up' (see shutdown and so many others)
  • irregardless. Just follow the 'litchally' clod out.
  • 'the ask' for 'the request' or 'the question'. Because life imitates a used car dealership. See 'the spend', 'action this', and whatever cocaine and flop-sweat gives us tomorrow. Go sell a car.
  • 'unless....' NO. Finish the Sentence.
  • when 'could've' became 'could of' and no one laughed their ass off at the guy, this was our missed opportunity.

Bonus: my friends are parents of elementary-school children. 'Skibidi' is one of so many words they researched carefully to make sure and screw up its usage as often as they can. It's a game, and I think they secretly keep score of eye-rolls earned. They're doing hero's work.

"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.

Or people could just get it right. It's really not that hard.

Found the English teacher.

Ha 😁

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!

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".