It bugs me when people say “the thing is is that” (if you listen for it, you’ll start hearing it… or maybe that’s something that people only do in my area.) (“What the thing is is that…” is fine. But “the thing is is that…” bugs me.)
Also, “just because <blank> doesn’t mean <blank>.” That sentence structure invites one to take “just because <blank>” as a noun phrase which my brain really doesn’t want to do. Just doesn’t seem right. But that sentence structure is very common.
And I’m not saying there’s anything objectively wrong with either of these. Language is weird and complex and beautiful. It’s just fascinating that some commonly-used linguistic constructions just hit some people wrong sometimes.
Edit: I thought of another one. “As best as I can.” “The best I can” is fine, “as well as I can” is good, and “as best I can” is even fine. But “as best as” hurts.
I hate that punctuation is “supposed” to go inside quotation marks. If you doing anything more complex than a simple statement of a quote, you run into cases where it doesn’t make sense to me.
Did he say “I had pancakes for supper?”andDid he say “I had pancakes for supper”?mean different things to me.Similarly:
That jerk called me a “tomato!”andThat jerk called me a “tomato”!It feels to me that the first examples add emphasis to the quotes that did not exist when originally spoken, whereas the second examples isolate the quote, which is the whole point of putting it in quotation marks.
Yes! That’s a good one.
Once place I’ve heard this take on punctuation mentioned is in Eric Raymond’s (version of) the Hacker Jargon File.
(I just realized when I included a link in the above sentence, I included the word “in” to make it clear I was not referring to the whole Hacker Jargon File, but rather a specific part in it.)
Completely agree, I put puncutation outside the quotes, screw the rules, being sensical is more important.
I agree with this so much. Your understanding just makes sense to me. And it’s even worse because we don’t do that in German, so I’m used to the sensible way! That just makes it feel extra weird.
Oh yeah 100%. This is a grammatical rule that I specifically refuse to follow. Writing it the “correct” way can and does meaningfully obscure the semantics of the quoted utterance in some circumstances.
Hard agree on this
I go out of my way to rephrase sentences due to this. That jerk called me a “tomato” for some reason!
Yeah but I shouldn’t have to restructure a sentence because some dipshit centuries ago made an objectively stupid grammatical rule that generally increases ambiguity.
Sure, but we don’t control what happened centuries ago.
Yeah but we can react to said change to either entrench or undermine it. I choose the latter.
I’m driven insane by the use of “itch” as a verb in place of scratch. ‘He itched his leg.’ Bleh!
“Would of”, “could of”, and “should of” infuriate me for some reason.
Because they’re wrong. And not in a “these kids and their new-fangled language” way, but in a “this is literally improper English” way.
Yet “would’ve”, “could’ve”, and “should’ve” are fine, if a touch informal, and sound literally identical in most dialects and accents. View it as your own personal window into how your conversation partner engages with language.
It’s not about sound. Would’ve is a contraction of “would have” not “would of.”
Would of is not a different way to interact with English because the meaning of “have” and “of” are completely different.
LOL, all I really meant is you get to learn that they don’t really engage with the language beyond translating sounds into letters. No real thought is given to why they say or write the things they do. It’s useful information.
I am all for woulda, coulda, and shoulda.
Right, I get that, it’s just that that particular incorrect usage annoys me more than most.
“On accident”… That doesn’t even make sense. You do something “by accident”.
I mean, to me it doesn’t really make that much sense one way or the other. Genuine question, how is “by” being used here? What are other examples of it being used this way?
By chance or by design would be other examples. Your question prompted me to look into the origins of the phrase and it appears to come from Latin.
https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/pardon-the-expression/by-accident-vs-on-accident/
I really can’t stand when someone says something happened, or they did something, “on accident”.
No. You do something on purpose or by accident.
I vaguely remember hearing that you can know whether someone was born before or after a specific year, depending on whether they use by or on accident.
My junior high math teacher knew what part of town you were from by this.
When discussion leads to another question, it raises the question.
To beg the question is to invoke a presumptive, circular argument.
And yet, now it’s to beg the question, even on the US Senate floor by boomers who should know better.
I hate the confusion that “do you mind” questions cause.
“Do you mind if I turn off the light?”
What is meant in response: “No (I don’t mind)”
What’s said instead: “Yes”
I feel like two people never really know how the other will interpret it, so you almost always have to say something like “yes, go ahead” or “no, I don’t mind” (or “no, go ahead”). If they do respond just “yes” or “no”, I feel like I have to ask for clarification.
Also can we get the meaning of “semi-” and “bi-” figured out? I generally love the oddities of evolving language so long as we can all still be understood, but these two always require clarification.
Bi-annual: Every two years.
Semi-annual: Twice a yearMake it a law!
This is why we need to bring back yae and nay. We used to have two different yes and no words, one set was used in exactly this context. French still has it IIRC. I can’t remember which were which in English, I think yae and nay were for positive questions, and yes and no were for negative questions. Aha, quick Google shows that is right, neat.
What are your thoughts on the word “biennial”?
I allow it only as it pertains to plants, anyone using it for an event deserves prison.
Just say “go ahead” or “please don’t.”
my peeve is the chopped infinitive, like “it needs fixed” instead of “it needs to be fixed”
IME that’s only really a thing among non-English speakers
Nope. Native US English speaker born in Ohio and a lot of the region into Appalachia uses this construction. IIRC it came from Irish and/or Scottish folks that settled there.
I’m guilty of this, and for some reason “the dishes need doing” in particular tickles my brain. That one doesn’t even make sense with an infinitive!
that one doesn’t bother me at all. “needs fixing”, “needs to be fixed”, same thing. but “needs fixed” can fuck right off.
What really gets me agitated is when people don’t use the helper verb “to be.” Examples include, “The tea needs strained,” or “The car needs washed.” No, you miserable cunts. The tea needs TO BE strained. The car needs TO BE washed. Nothing presently needs the past tense of an action. I know there’s parts of the US where this sentence construction is common but those entire regions can honestly fuck off. People say it’s a dialect or something. I don’t buy it. Not knowing basic rules of your native language isn’t a dialect. It’s just you being dumb. I hate it so much!
You know what else I hate? “It is what it is.” Of course it is, you dense motherfucker! If it wasn’t what it was, it would be something else, which would then be what it is! It’s the most nonsensical phrase I’ve ever heard and it pretty much exists so you have something to say when you have nothing even remotely worth hearing to say.
“it is what it is” makes sense to me. Yes, it’s tautological. But it’s just emphasizing the point that whatever it is cannot be changed by the people
discussiondiscussing it.There’s any number of better ways to make that point without sounding like a clown.
I know there’s parts of the US where this sentence construction is common but those entire regions can honestly fuck off.
Also bits of Nothern England. My Geordie friend uses that all the time. It feels really wrong.
Wait till you get to parts of northern England where they say “The car wants washing” 😂
That’s just it. Neither of the phrases is “wrong;” they are just a dialectical feature some people don’t share. There’s a systematic conjugation there, the lack of the helper verb is completely irrelevant if the person uses the construction consistently, and meaning is communicated successfully without it. The only reason to avoid it is as a social choice to avoid being judged by people who would call you a miserable cunt, or maybe to prove you completed a needlessly strict course of instruction in English grammar that proves you’re not a miserable cunt.
“The car wants washing” is fine, thankfully I’ve never heard anyone north or south say “The car wants washed”, which was OP’s concern
A former boss of mine was a frequent user of “it is what it is” and now I just associate it with shit decision making and people that manage to fail upward.
Yeah, I’ve noticed something similar. It’s always the worst people who use that phrase to paper over their shit ideas or decisions.
“Aren’t I”, as in “I’m still going with you, aren’t I?”, which, when uncontracted, becomes “are I not?” It should be “ain’t I” since “ain’t” is a proper contraction for “amn’t”, but there’s been an irrational suppression of “ain’t”.
which, when uncontracted, becomes “are I not?”
Nope ‘are not I?’
I’d say the suppression of ain’t is perfectly rational unless you want to sound like a cowboy
One thing I try to avoid when I’m writing is when two words repeat. Kind of like your example “the thing is is that.” If I catch myself writing it, I try to rearrange the sentence.
Although a pretty extreme example tickles me: “The cookie he had had had had no effect on his appetite.”
James, while John had had “had”, had had “had had”. “Had had” had had a better effect on the teacher.
I hate this, thank you.
Dutch has the same phenomenon, being so similar to English, but the standard way of writing it is by putting a comma after the noun phrase. So in your example, it’d change to “the cookie he had had, had had…” Typically practical solution that forfeits a charming oddity.
Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo.
Misusing words like “setup” vs “set up”, or “login” vs “log in”. “Anytime” vs “any time” also steams my clams.
So I use both, depending on context. “Setup” is a noun, “set up” is a verb. “Login” is a noun, “log in” is a verb.
I’ve been sitting here trying to figure out different proper contexts for “anytime” vs “any time,” but honestly, I can decide one way or the other.
“Thanks” “anytime!”
“I wish you had done that any time other than right now.”
Were the first two that came to mind.
To me, “log in” can only be used
verballyas a verbal phrase, but “login” could be used as a noun or verb. Though I still wouldn’t say, “As a lumberjack, I login the woods up north”
I saw “I literally could careless” and almost had a stroke.
I have a friend who writes ‘a bit’ as one word… '“I was feeling abit weird”. That really peeves me!
I’ve encountered this Alot.
https://hyperboleandahalf.blogspot.com/2010/04/alot-is-better-than-you-at-everything.html?m=1
I wish Allie would come back :(
What is your opinion of the word “another”?
Using “basis” to mean “based on”.
“Basis our discussion, please go ahead and…” “We decided on a price point basis our market research.”
It makes me uncomfortable.
I haven’t encountered that and it’s upsetting and dumb.
I hate the recent trend of using “onboarding”. It sounds clunky to me and as if you’re trying to sound all cool and up to date.
Is there a replacement that you’re fond of? We use it all the time at work - onboarding free users, onboarding paid users, onboarding employees.
“Next weekend” “Next Friday” etc. Wherein they use “Next” to mean “the one after” rather than “the soonest interval in which it will reoccur”
If it is Wednesday and you say “Next Friday” I will immediately think of two days from now, not 9 days. I also especially dislike it because if feels like on a whim that it’ll change. for some “next weekend” will be in 5 days if it’s Monday, or 10 days if it’s Wednesday! What the heck people??
On a Wednesday I would use “This Friday” or just “Friday” to describe 2 days away. Using “next” in the context you’re describing seems weird to me.
If it’s Wednesday, “Friday” or “this Friday” would describe the day in 2 days. “Next Friday” would be 9 days away. I think it’s clear and have never had an issue with people not knowing which day is being discussed. Maybe people around here are more consistent about it than other areas?
That is always confusing to me. If I am on a bus stop: “This bus” doesn’t make sense, it doesn’t exist yet. Next bus, is the next occurance of event “Bus”.
If it’s Wednesday, the “this Friday” doesn’t really make sense. There doesn’t exist a Friday in Wednesday, that you call this. Next Friday however is quite clear - it’s next occurrence of event “Friday” on the timeline, so it’s the one in two days.
Ok but if you’re at a bus stop, and the bus is just coming round the corner into sight, you can say “this bus” even though it’s not parked up yet.
Same thing with this Friday. If it’s close enough to be in mind, you can use this.
I hate the ambiguity in that too. My usual goto instead is “the coming Friday”
Or Friday next week for… You know… The next week’s Friday
