We all know grammar Nazis. What incorrect grammar are you completely in defence of?
-
As in, doesn't matter at all to you.
Irregardless, for all intensive purposes your point is mute.
-
As in, doesn't matter at all to you.
RAS syndrome.
-
RAS syndrome.
MLB Baseball?
-
I really like to write 'gonna.'
I spells it like I says it
-
While I might use them interchangeably, as a non-native I would think "need to" is supposed to mean that the situation came out of necessity, such as feeling the need to pee or resorting to selling your car because of an empty wallet, while "have to" is more like the result of some rules or discipline, such as showing up to work in time - but I understand that the line between the two can be rather blurry.
As for my thing: there are a few shortened words in my language (similarly to the English "hubby", "preggo", etc.) that got shortened according to pronunciation, and not the original (longer) word, having a different spelling at the start (as if "circle" got shortened to "circ", but spelled as "cirk"). It feels like a kid came up with the spelling, and now it's the official form. It's bugging my inner spelling nazi every time I see it.
Relatedly, it really bugs me out when I'm watching English-language media from outside North America and someone says "what are we meant to do" in a situation where I would say "what are we supposed to do". Like, a lot. Best I can figure, it implies to me a sort of outside intention driving one's actions, as opposed to the mere regard implied by "supposed", and my anti-authoritarian ass rankles at that.
Anyone else have feelings about this one?
-
As in, doesn't matter at all to you.
Mooses and gooses
-
Would've: fine.
Would have: fine.
Would of: me go mental! Why do people do this?! Argh!Don't confuse dialectal differences with bad grammar, please.
-
Relatedly, it really bugs me out when I'm watching English-language media from outside North America and someone says "what are we meant to do" in a situation where I would say "what are we supposed to do". Like, a lot. Best I can figure, it implies to me a sort of outside intention driving one's actions, as opposed to the mere regard implied by "supposed", and my anti-authoritarian ass rankles at that.
Anyone else have feelings about this one?
Wow. Do you know the feeling when someone brings your attention to something that you had been ignoring pretty much all your life, and from that point it drives you mad every single time? Yeah, you have just done that with the meant to/supposed to thing. You're SO totally right! Aaaand you cursed me.
-
There's a pretty trivial rule for getting this right. Phrase your sentence using who/whom as a question. Respond with he/him. If your response contains a "he", your initial statement should be "who"; if it contains a "him" then you're looking at a "whom" use.
- ex: "To who/whom should the gold be given?" -> "To him" -> "whom"
- ex: "Who/whom wants the gold?" -> "He wants the gold" -> "who"
- ex: "Who/whom did you see at the party?" -> "I saw him" -> "whom"
- ex: "The man who/whom called earlier is here" -> "Who/whom called?" -> "he called" -> "who"
I tell people this and say, “Follow the M.”
-
As in, doesn't matter at all to you.
I'm really fond of using "I'mma" and "gonna".
I obviously wouldn't use these words in a professional document, but everywhere else I'mma use "gonna" and "I'mma" whenever I feel like it.
-
End a sentence with a preposition if you want to. And start one with a conjunction.
I like ending my sentences with and.
-
As in, doesn't matter at all to you.
I’ve started using “used to could” instead of “used to be able to”, and I will not stop.
-
who/whom.
Maybe it's because that English is not my first language but I always find it confusing.
wrote last edited by [email protected]If you can replace the word with “he”, you always use who. If you can replace the word with “him”, you can use whom if you want to.
Whom did you lead into battle?
I led him into battle.
Who ate all the cake?
He ate all the cake.
The key takeaway is you can always use who and it will be correct, because who is both a subject and an object. So, if you don’t want to bother with the rule, just stick to who and you can’t go wrong.
-
As in, doesn't matter at all to you.
I don’t care if people say “chomping at the bit”, because it basically means the same thing as “champing at the bit”, and nobody uses the word champing anymore anyway.
-
As in, doesn't matter at all to you.
Compression of the sentence “are you going to be there” into “y’gon be de’” is better than most compression algorithms can do.
-
If I am clearly referring to myself (as in a text), I shouldn't have to inlude myself in the sentence. Ex: "just grabbing food" vs "I'm just grabbing food".
wrote last edited by [email protected]In Spanish, the conjugation of the verb lets you drop the subject, which is eloquent.
“¿Qué haces?”
“Estoy
llegandollevando comida.” -
The one thing I will insist on is the use of is/are. It's pretty simple, if referring to a countable set, use "are". E.g. there are four turtles in my sewer. You would not say "there are too much shit on this webpage", because that shit is uncountable.
There are too many shit on this webpage.
-
I like y'all're
wrote last edited by [email protected]Y'all'd've (YAWL-duh if your drawl is heavy enough): You all would have
-
In Spanish, the conjugation of the verb lets you drop the subject, which is eloquent.
“¿Qué haces?”
“Estoy
llegandollevando comida.”I'm not sure "I'm arriving food" is the best spanish out there
-
I'm not sure "I'm arriving food" is the best spanish out there
Whoops, that should be llevando, not llegando.
