• Lileath@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    When people formulate questions as statements, because it throws me out of my reading flow ha ing to correct my inner voice.

  • Darleys_Brew@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    “Then” when it should be “than”.

    People starting sentences with “I mean”, and no prior context.

  • bitjunkie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    I actually came across one of mine in this thread where someone was talking about an unrelated one of theirs: The plural of a word that ends with “st” is “sts”, not also “st”. If you write it like that because that’s how you say it, it’s because you’re also saying it wrong.

  • Fedegenerate@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    ‘Who’ Vs ‘whom’.

    Answer the question with ‘he’ Vs ‘him’ and match the 'm’s is an easy rule of thumb.

    He went to the park: who went to the park?

    You called him: Whom did you call?

    I understand why it’s falling out of usage, as the strong SVO eliminates the need for accusatives, I wouldn’t be surprised if ‘him’ and ‘her’ go away next. Knowing and using ‘whom’ sure helped me with the ‘-n’ affix when learning Esperanto though, also fuck ‘-n’ signed: English speakers. But replace the word with whom, him or her and if it’s clumsy you don’t need the -n.

    Now, if I could just wrap my head around ‘si’ Vs ‘li’, ‘ŝi’ and ‘ri’. Or, a solid rule of thumb, that would be so nice. I promise I’m not a toddler, I just talk like one.

  • chunes@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    Some of mine in no particular order:

    • Comma splices.
    • Using apostrophes to make abbreviations plural. It’s UFOs, not UFO’s. This goes for decades, too. It’s 1920s, not 1920’s.
    • Putting punctuation in the wrong place when parentheticals are involved (like this.) (Or like this).
    • Same for quotations. Programmers in particular seem averse to putting punctuation on the inside where it usually belongs.
    • Mixing up insure, ensure, and assure.
    • Using ‘that’ where ‘who’ is more appropriate. For example, “People that don’t use their blinkers are annoying.”
  • spittingimage@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    People who use “can” to mean either “can” OR “can’t” and expect you to work out what they mean from context.

  • JakoJakoJako13@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    I absolutely detest the practice of saying the “the proper nouns of the world,” i.e the Tom Brady’s of the world. Or the Empire State buildings of the world. First off, it’s a proper noun. The implication of a proper noun is there is only one specific instance. Second, that’s diminishing to the proper noun used by lowering that status to the mean. Last, it’s usually used in a sports context to unnecessarily group up a bunch of players even though we already know the context of why they’re being grouped up for comparison. It’s just fucking dumb. It really grinds my gears.

  • k_rol@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    I get hung up on i.e. vs e.g. I’m not sure this counts as grammar though… I also understand the meaning is not very known so many people confuse the two but I wish it was overall well understood so that the message is very clear.

    E.g. is used when enumerating examples, it doesn’t have to include all possibilities. Like saying “for example…”

    I.e. is to demonstrate exactly what we are talking about. It’s like saying “by that I mean this”.

    • Fedegenerate@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      I know the difference between i.e and e.g. but I’ve never really seen the point in i.e. if you’re just going to enumerate what you mean anyway. It is like using “it” to replace a noun, but then explaining what you meant by “it” right next to the usage:

      It (using i.e.) is like using “it” (the noun used as a shorthand for other nouns) to replace a noun, but then explaining what you meant by “it” (the noun used as a shorthand for other nouns) right next to the usage.

      It’s clumsy, just use the list if you’re going to list them anyway.

      I like dairy products i.e. milk cream, cheese and yoghurt.

      I like milk, cream, cheese and yoghurt

      • 200ok@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        I am firmly in thread-OP’s boat and wanted to disagree with you, but I searched my email/sms comment history to find examples of when I used “i.e.” (to refute you) and you’re right: I could have been more concise in every single instance.

        I often used “i.e.” to essentially repeat myself… to “drive the point home”, much like I’m doing right now.

        It’s something I actually hate about myself, that I ramble on and on when I’ve already made my point. Sorry to everyone that read this entire comment… I promise I’m working on it.

  • Denjin@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    This cafe

    A cafe called Sutton Snax's

    I mean I try not to be a dick about spelling and grammar and stuff these days, but come on!

    • palordrolap@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      It could be owned by an entity called Sutton Snax. That probably isn’t what they’re going for, but it could be read that way.

      Now, x-apostrophe might be (more?) correct in that instance but it’s far more forgivable than any interpretation as a plural.

  • Lasherz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    I understand it’s controversial, but people who don’t put the final comma in a list before “and” which then groups the final two items as one erroneously.

    Also, when people put a space before a comma. I’m not sure why they do that, but it’s cemented in some people’s brains who speak fluent English from childhood onward.

    • Dicska@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      I see where you’re coming from. In school we were also taught to NOT put a comma before ‘and’ if it’s a list. I also didn’t quite get it, and found it weird. However, if you consider ‘and’ and a comma serving the same purpose (linking the elements in a list), then putting a comma before ‘and’ would just make either of them redundant. I’m not saying I prefer either of the two, but at least there is a reason to it.

      • Lasherz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

        The issue comes in when you consider there are times you’d want to group things. Example:

        I would like a toolbox with 4 drawers: Nuts and bolts, screws, washers and chisels.

        • Dicska@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Oh, if anything, unless it’s in the last element, it’s easier to see paired items in the list ( ‘,’ -> next element; ’ and ’ -> still the same element, with ‘and’ inside). When it’s the last element, it’s indeed ambiguous. And then there’s /u/hakase 's comment:

          “They went to Oregon with Betty, a maid, and a cook”, where Betty is the maid mentioned.

      • WindyRebel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 days ago

        I sign this as well. It’s literally a character difference and there is no ambiguity at all. There is no downside.

        • hakase@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          The downside is that with appositive phrases present the Oxford comma can introduce ambiguity:

          “Thanks to my mother, Mother Teresa, and the pope.”

          In the Oxford comma system this is ambiguous between three people (1. my mother 2. Mother Teresa 3. the pope), and two people (1. my mother, who is Mother Teresa 2. the pope). Without the Oxford comma it’s immediately clear that “, Mother Teresa,” is an appositive phrase.

          The opposite happens as well, where Oxford commas allow true appositives to be unintentionally read as lists:

          “They went to Oregon with Betty, a maid, and a cook”, where Betty is the maid mentioned.

          This ambiguity is easily fixed, of course, but then again so is any ambiguity from not using an Oxford comma as well.

          Note that I use the Oxford comma myself, but it’s still worth mentioning that both systems are ambiguous, just in different ways.

  • Deestan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    Resistance to shifting grammar annoys me.

    Educated linguists know really well that language changes over time. It is natural and expected. There are also living valid variations of grammar outside standardized “book” grammar.

    People who are zero educated just go with whatever.

    People who are half educated juuuust enough to be smartasses but not enough to be smart will say shit like “I don’t know, can you?” in response to “Can I go to the bathroom”. Or pretend an emphasized negation - aka double negative - can be interpreted as a positive.

    • davidgro@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 days ago

      Regarding double negatives, I get what you are saying, but they absolutely can be interpreted as a positive - this is easily proven by simply reversing one of them, and they can be reversed because they are after all negatives.

      But if the speaker’s meaning is clear then of course it’s rude and incorrect to misinterpret them.
      I feel like there’s a gray area though where some constructions may be genuinely ambiguous which way the speaker meant (since a double negative as negative by definition means the opposite of what the words would mean otherwise)