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”.
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.
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.
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 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]
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.
Doesn’t this make sense if someone says it in a sarcastic manner?
No
“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.
I think they just heard could’ve or meant to say could’ve
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!
Haahahhaahahhahahahahaahaah
Reminds me of “Worse case scenario”
Worser cast scenario.
Thanks! I’ll be using that from now on.
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”.
“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!
My favorite of these mnemonics (try spelling that from memory) for these arbitrary distinctions was in a movie that had some evil lords in it. The father way telling the son,
“Pheasants are hung, peasants are hanged.”
This thread peaks my interest.
I hope my words
piquedsomeone else’s interests more.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
I might loooose my parking space…
Pretty sure it’s “Feral Intensive Porpoises”
Former colleague used to say "for all intensive purposes"every few sentences.
“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
“For all intensive porpoises” is the one that really annoys me.
They’re dolphins, not porpoises. Fuck, get your cetaceans right.
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
To my ears it sounds weird without the “to”, but so does “fraught” instead of “fraught with [something]”, which is now common-ish.
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.
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.”
“Inflammable means flammable? What a country!”
“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
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.”
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
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.
