Words - Phrases - Grammar that used to be considered incorrect usage that is now considered okay

“is goals”

“Went missing”

That little girl did NOT go missing of her own volition. She was stolen and she is missing!

I really don’t care, OP. Do U?

Anyways. I hate that word.

When someone says "hung" when they mean "hanged" makes me want to scream a violent scream.

Loan as a verb. Loan is a noun; lend is a verb.

*Mom loaned me $5000. Mom lent me $5000.

"What hotel are you staying at?"

"Send me the invite!"

Gifted.

“I gifted my daughter a spermicidal sponge.”

Thank God, you cow, because you GAVE her no brains!

Unnecessary use of the past conditional: "I wish you would've told me," instead of "I wish you had told me." Or "If you would have asked me, I would have come," instead of "If you had asked me, I would have come."

"If you would have asked me" doesn't pass Muster even today.

^^^^^ "I would of"

"Literally" used to mean "figuratively."

The difference between fewer and less seems to have evaporated.

Invite a guest and have them bring their luggage to gate 45.

"Based off" instead of "based on."

woke................ PLEASE. let's encourage stupidity.

"Based off" wasn't considered incorrect. It wasn't considered AT ALL. It doesn't mean anything, really. "Based on" is correct. (I know, I know. Enough millenniots use it that it's now considered acceptable. But that is based on idiocy trumping reason.

"To" instead of "from" or "between" .

"Literally" used to mean "figuratively."

🖕🏽Read as written, as a complete sentence, R13 states that the word literally once was used figuratively. 😂

"Of a".

R19 Examples, please?

"invite" as a noun; "gift" as a verb. "moreso."

"arrive to."

[quote] "Based off" instead of "based on."

And, in the same vein, “based out of” instead of “based in.”

I thought grudgingly and begrudgingly were different. I hear begrudging(ly) (stintingly) used where I would use grudging(ly), to mean reluctantly.

"That's a whole nuther thing"

What kind of word is 'nuther'?

"I feel badly"

I hate when idiots mispronounce "jewelry" as "jew-lur-ee"

They are different, R26.

“She did her thing.”

I suppose she did, and perhaps I would appreciate her for it if I had any idea what “her thing” is.

People that don't know when to use then and than.

"Disconnect" instead of "disconnection".

You're right, R11, but I hear it so often I'm no longer sure others know it's wrong.

"What was your name, again?"

[quote]🖕🏽Read as written, as a complete sentence, [R13] states that the word literally once was used figuratively. 😂

Or, one could recognize the joke implicit in constructing a sentence that mirrors the problem of the underlying problem of the two words involved...

“Cliche” used as an adjective - this seems to be an American thing.

'Addicting' instead of addictive. 'That show is so addicting!' KILL ME NOW.

Agh, R23, "moreso" drives me bonkers! And I R21, if you're thinking of mangled expressions like "not that big of a deal," or "not that good of an actor," I agree completely. "Of" is redundant here. It's "not that big a deal."

Even Maddow says less instead of fewer r14 😔

R38 I hate “addicting” enough to be an asshole about it, no matter who says it. “Oh,” I say. “Addicting? Do you mean addictive? Do you have any idea when you began to use that word? Did you just hear someone say it and think, ‘oh, addictive is now addicting,’ and change as soon as you heard it? What about ‘went missing’? Would you mind conjugating that one for me? Does it sound right to you?”

It gets me nowhere, but maybe even as people resent me for being a prick, they’ll begin to think about the words they use to communicate thoughts.

Issues AROUND [something] instead of Issues concerning/related to/etc.

AROUND has seeped into the language of pretentious twats and it drives me crazy.

Starting a sentence with "SO."

Omitting the subject of a sentence per the conventions on Twitter: "Very sad to hear that the dingo ate your baby."

I have been starting sentences with "So..." as long as I've been alive. And I've been alive a long, long time. I don't get what the problem is.

[quote] People that ...

It's people WHO, r32

Like the overuse of the word "like" especially when it's used in place of "say".

[quote]People that don't know when to use then and than.

People who don't know when to use "who" and "that."

R42 I’ve been annoyed for a year by a board member who says “talk around” instead of “talk about.” Recently, I went to Seattle, where she is from, and I heard many people say the same. Then I realized several people I know from the San Francisco area say “around” when I would say “about.” I think it’s a regional difference, and now that I have considered it, I realize that “about” and “around” are interchangeable. Brits would say “I wandered about London,” while I would say “I wandered around London.” SO (haha) in this instance, I’ve decided the problem is around me, not around people who don’t say about.

Is it correct to use "amount" for count nouns? ("the amount of victims," "the amount of letters," etc.)

Without any further context clues, r48, I would probably use "number" instead of "amount."

R43, it is fucking annoying.

Using loose or loosing instead of lose. I see it so often I think it will be considered correct.

Could care less

R43: do you do it in writing as well?

"Fucking annoying" isn't enough, R50. What is [bold]incorrect[/bold] about it? I never heard anyone criticize it pre-Datalounge (for me, 2013). Is it a NY/NJ-ism?

[quote]I have been starting sentences with "So..." as long as I've been alive. And I've been alive a long, long time. I don't get what the problem is.

[quote]R43, it is fucking annoying.

Not r43, but it is a widespread misapprehension that it is grammatically incorrect to begin a sentence with a conjunction.

And, being annoying is not a reason not to do so.

R53 I might if I am writing dialogue.

"Off of". Sign of a lack of proper breeding

From the "Taking showers with other guys" thread:

[quote]There may be less of them once school is back in session.

Irregardless. It's just Regardless. Adding the "ir" doesn't change the meaning in any way. "Regardless of how late it is I'm calling him to hook up." or "Irregardless of how late it is I'm calling him to hook up." mean the same thing

conversate

Here's another beauty: using "was" rather than "were" when referencing hypothetical or unknown situations.

“So” is fine with me when it is used in place of “therefore,” as a way of drawing together the sum of what has been said before it.

There is a more annoying way that some people use “so” to start sentences, and I feel like that’s probably what the person above is lamenting. I work with a woman who starts almost every sentence she says with the word, and she draws it out into a whine as a sort of anticipation-building lead in. “Soooooo, I hate to have to be the one to tell you this, but Trump said something that’s going to offend you. I wasn’t going to tell you. Soooo...do you want me to tell you, or do you want to read the tweet on your own time? So, I’m looking at Twitter right now. I can read it. So?”

See also: Kristen Wiig’s Penelope character.

r33 I watched Season 2 of The Wire last week. People used "disconnect" as a noun so often, I was wondering if it's something we originally got from rap. I had always attributed it to Cokie Roberts.

[quote]“So” is fine with me when it is used in place of “therefore,” as a way of drawing together the sum of what has been said before it.

That's how I use it. Instead of "in summation" or "ergo..."

R58: yes, less than i wrong in that context; it's fewer than.

R60: "conversate" is the WORST.

Using "bias" as the adjective instead of "biased" ("He is so bias!"), which is part of a larger trend of dropping the "ed" from adjectives.

So what. ~P!nk

The use of "data" as a singular noun has become so widespread that it now almost sounds peculiar when it's used properly (e.g. "The data are stored in...").

I think the people who make these mistakes are the ones who don't read, or didn't read as children, so they've never seen the words used correctly, in print. We basically have sloppy grammar and incorrect usage being passed along aurally.

Really, I really used to think that the Brits had a superior command of language than we Amurrikuns do, but now I know that they really, truly, overuse adverbs and are really brilliantly prone to the most ostentatious, baroque hyperbole, even when discussing the most mundane things. Really, I’ve really communicated with a journalist in the UK who—really, it’s brilliant—can use the word really ten times in three sentences, and works in brilliant at least a couple of times.

I love these threads. I learn so much. Gracias.

De nada, bitch.

“Suck my dick, you cocksucking faggoty mother fucker.”

Clearly, a faggot would not fuck his mother.

Nuther is ok. It's a southernism, but never meant to be written. I hate "between you and I." Seems so many people say it now, it's becoming acceptable. Can't stand "read" as a noun, and even the NYT does it now: "a great read."

Using "Lay" rather than "Lie": "Please lay down and go to sleep!"

It is incorrect to use AMOUNT for count nouns.

It might be grammatically correct to begin sentences with SO but it looks sloppy and annoying: "So I went to the store today."

[quote]Nuther is ok. It's a southernism, but never meant to be written.

If it is written, it's 'nother.

I hate it when people say, “you’re not educated” when they mean “you’re not intelligent.” The two are not synonymous. I work in the higher education sector and after 20 years, I can say with confidence that plenty of people who possess limited intelligence and limited critical thinking ability hold doctoral degrees.

Also, I never minded y’all when it was a southern idiom, but for some reason I resent it now that the use is pervasive. I hear people from all over the country say it now, even on television. Alla y’all is even more maddening. I understand that it’s natural since we have no plural version of “you” as most languages do (I’m from a “you guys” region, south of the “youse guys” region.), but it irks me to hear anyone without a southern US accent say it. It’s like hearing a white person rap in a put-upon black dialect. It’s just irksome.

[quote] I think the people who make these mistakes are the ones who don't read, or didn't read as children, so they've never seen the words used correctly, in print.

If we could get children to read more books starting at an early age, we could nip some of these grammar problems in the butt.

ESL -> "That's HOW they look LIKE."

It's HOW they look, or WHAT they look LIKE.

well done, R80.

[quote]It is incorrect to use AMOUNT for count nouns.

"Count nouns"? Try "countable," dimwit.

[quote] I think the people who make these mistakes are the ones who don't read, or didn't read as children, so they've never seen the words used correctly, in print. We basically have sloppy grammar and incorrect usage being passed along aurally.

I agree. College students' writing reads like that of ESL students. Students today cannot even use prepositions properly. It is shocking.

I attribute the decline in writing skills to two things: (1) the "active learning" movement in education, which took off in the 90s and (2) kids no longer reading for fun.

Mainly, I blame (1). Learning to read is time-consuming and a solitary endeavor. It's the foundation for good writing. But reading well is anathema to the prevailing theories in the discipline of education. Next to business, education is the emptiest field of study. It's little more than an industry that churns out doctorates and stupid gimmicks promoting group work, short activities and expressing feelings. If a nuclear bomb destroyed all education experts, the world would not lose anything of importance.

"Sign off" for "sign", as if ending a radio broadcast and not writing a signature on a piece of paper.

[quote] "Count nouns"? Try "countable," dimwit.

Count noun is a term in linguistics, idiot.

"Preventative" for "preventive".

Over the past year I've read through and contributed to a number of these threads and would instead this time like to make the following suggestion, realizing this is the DL and only the intelligent DLers will appreciate this, while attackers and trolls will pounce.

1- If we are polite about it (as opposed to condescending) most DLers will appreciate the correction in a reply to their post. (Except where OP is sharing that which requires understanding and empathy, like an illness, recent death of someone close, pending eviction, etc.).

2- When posting the incorrect use of the word here on this thread it's helpful to also include the proper usage in a sentence, as most here have done. This way, those who use these words incorrectly will know the proper usage. (Looking at you r 7 & r 15).

3- Be glad that the word "mightn't" is no longer a proper word; "Mightn't we have .......... ."

My parents didn’t attend college, but my mom came from many generations of English teachers (her mother worked in a bank, but all the women before her taught English in the US and Gaelic in Ireland), and she made sure language was a priority. When I was in trouble, I’d cry that “I did it on accident” as my friends said, and she would snap, “NO. You did it ON purpose, OR ELSE you did it BY accident! Which is it?” My best friend as a toddler said “aww” instead of “R,” and when she went home, my mom would growl at me and make me growl back—“ARR!”—to be certain I could speak properly. When I asked questions like, “why is the sky blue?” she told me “I don’t know. Go look it up and then come back and tell me.” Literacy was the priority in my home after kindness. It wasn’t about being “right” to my parents; it was about having language skills that would facilitate communication and rational thinking. Both of my parents are (were in the case of my mom; we lost her unexpectedly in December) better writers than any of the Ph.D. holders and most of the lawyers I’ve edited throughout my career. I’m grateful. When I encounter or witness people whom many others would call “stupid,” I usually have the sense that there’s a perfectly intelligent person in there frustrated by an inability to communicate what they think and feel.

Here's an interesting article about the demise of "whom."

To add to R84's comment, I think many primary schools have dropped courses in grammar from the curriculum--and while grammar was tedious to learn, once learned you've got it for life. I think it's also true that, beginning with millennials, people began communicating via social media, which doesn't require--or even encourage--spelling, grammar, syntax and all the elements that make up proper English.

[quote]When I was in trouble, I’d cry that “I did it on accident” as my friends said, and she would snap, “NO. You did it ON purpose, OR ELSE you did it BY accident! Which is it?”

Are you from New Jersey? I said "on accident" for years.

R83: "count nouns" is perfectly correct. Google this exact phrase and you will get more than 320,000 hits.

R89, I commend your proper use of "whom."

I think what galls people about "So..." is the people who use it do so almost compulsively.

"Where did you go for lunch?"

"So, there's this new Thai place and I wanted to check it out..."

"How was it?"

"So, I had the pad thai and it was..."

I hear people overuse it on public radio all the time and it drives me crazy. It's contagious, too. The interviewee will say it, then the interviewer will begin their statement/question with it, then they just toss the "so..." back and forth with each response. Then the listeners must think it sounds smart and THEY do it.

I would never use "so" as shown in either of those examples.

R92 I grew up in northern Virginia (D.C. suburb). My mom is from Arlington, just outside of DC, and my dad is from coastal North Carolina. His regional idioms and vocabulary used to flip my mother’s Mr. Hyde switch sometimes, especially when he said “I’m going to carry the car to the store.” He also called the car hood the bonnet, the trunk the boot, and the glove compartment the car pocket, which actually makes a lot more sense to me since I have never seen anyone use the glove compartment to compartmentalize gloves.

Count nouns and mass nouns:

'Normalcy' in place of 'normality.' Warren Harding was ridiculed for using it in 1920 but it's used widely today.

I don’t even bother using “rear” (re: where someone grew up) instead of “raised” anymore. It would just attract attention & maybe giggles.

I had a professor say that chickens are raised, people are not.

I am at least as annoyed by “incorrect” usage and neologisms as others are, but here is the reality that we were never taught about language: it evolves just like a living organism. Unless it is geographically isolated (Iceland is an example.), vocabulary and grammar and syntax change constantly, and this is especially the case of our hybrid language.

Drug for dragged

I’m a little put off when people reply with “I’m well” to “how are you”.

For one thing, I’m not asking about their temperature. I want to know how are they doing...how is their day going...how is their world...

Secondly, it sounds like someone is trying too hard to sound educated. People mistakenly think it sounds professional & polite. It’s cold; insincere.

Just relax & belt out “I feel good” like James Brown.

It's interesting the way people hear and internalize words. My very small son, who was pretty verbal, was misbehaving one day and I scolded him: "you need to BEHAVE." His response? "I AM being have. YOU need to be have."

[quote] To add to [R84]'s comment, I think many primary schools have dropped courses in grammar from the curriculum--and while grammar was tedious to learn, once learned you've got it for life.

Even if grammar is taught, the teachers today don't understand it well enough themselves to help their students understand it. Students are often taught to do whatever "sounds right."

[quote] I think it's also true that, beginning with millennials, people began communicating via social media, which doesn't require--or even encourage--spelling, grammar, syntax and all the elements that make up proper English.

When the Internet became popular in the '90s, people predicted that it would improve writing and grammar skills because everyone would be busy reading material on the web and composing emails. We all know how that turned out. As email messages have been replaced by social media posts, text messages and emojis, grammar rules have gone out the window. We seem to be moving backward toward a more primitive form of communication.

Good point, r101. And in the spirit of that article, I'd like to say that I'm happy that split infinitives are now much more generally accepted.

It's just a hop, skip, and a jump from emojis to writing on cave walls. And I'm not entirely joking.

Me, him and her are going to . . . or him and I . . . or me and yourself.

Pronouns are constantly bludgeoned.

R107 I would find that interesting, to be honest. Egyptian hieroglyphs have an innate elegance (to my eye) that our characters don’t have. And they were connected to the natural world, whereas ours are so far abstracted that they no longer do, with maybe the exception of the letter S. I believe some Asian characters likewise are both symbolic and representational, and they certainly convey thought at least as well as our characters do; they’re just conceived and built differently. The ancient Celtic alphabet Ogham assigned a different tree to each letter, and the spirit of that tree was then imbued into each letter, and so (as Hebrew letters have corresponding numeric values) combining the characters into words created a much more complex meaning than our simple characters do. Despite Western people beginning to understand recently that we’ve been wrong to believe ourselves to be superior to people from other regions and from ancient times, we still believe that our ways are inherently superior.

"Awesome" for everything.. though I find myself saying it sometimes.

Most interesting, R109.

[quote] I hear people overuse it on public radio all the time and it drives me crazy. It's contagious, too.

Exactly. I used to listen to Morning Edition on my commute to work, but I can't take it anymore. They've adopted this conversational tone that is very off-putting. I'm glad I'm not the only one who's noticed it.

I don't know how much a negative effect social media has had on writing skills. Students do not use "textspeak" for their written assignments, as it was once feared they would do. I think it is more about never reading anything longer than a few sentences. They don't do it for fun and they hardly do it in school either.

People who think "dove" is the past tense of "dive." It's "dived." And using "snuck" when "sneaked" is correct.

Lately on NYC TV reports when someone is found lying on the sidewalk or in the street, bystanders say "he was on the floor."

I’ve seen a lot of people say “weary” (tired) when they mean “leery” or “wary” (cautious).

R112 Maybe students maintain proper language for academic writing assignments, but “textspeak” is changing cultural norms in coded ways. For example, I have heard people on TV, including newscasters, say “OMFG” and “WTF,” and I’ve heard those expressions spoken (followed by adult giggles) in formal settings such as board meetings. Anyone who understands the expressions understands they involve the word “fuck.” While “fuck” is still improper, the use of its surrogate—same meaning, just a different expression of it—is in common use among adults and children in the most casual and the most formal settings. That’s a dramatic change. It’s not the same as saying “frickin” instead of “fucking” or “darn” instead of “damn.” It’s beyond that insofar as it implicitly brings the word fuck to mind, not as a replacement word. That’s a significant development, culturally speaking.

I am "journaling." Journal is a noun. The verb" to write" works fine. Stop turning nouns into verbs.

He graduated college. Should be "graduated from......"

R117 How do you think the word “journalist” came into common use?

[quote] "What hotel are you staying at?"

Long gone are the days of "Where are you stopping?"

"Let's unpack this."

AX !!!

Him and me were talkin' then she come over and axed us if we saw the guy who hung hisself on the tree.

All the fucking unpacking that goes on nowadays!!

R122 Read this. “Ax” has been in common use as long as “ask” has, and at times, it was regarded as the “correct” version.

If you read this and still determine “ax” to be a hallmark of degenerate language usage, then—like it or not—you’re practicing racism.

Irregardless.

"Irregardless" (for "regardless") reminds me of "inflammable" (for "flammable ").

Interesting R 125. Even so, it's painful to the ear. Many white people use "AX" rather than "ask."

Perhaps, but criticism of “ax” in the US is one of the most overt expressions of the racist (and to a lesser extent classist) caste system that we have always denied exists here.

I also hate the word "snuck" for sneaked OP, even educated people who should know better use it. To paraphrase a Chinese proverb: "No mater how many times or how many people say or do a wrong thing, it is still a wrong thing".

R68, data isn't consistently plural, though.

Data can mean information, which is singular.

So saying "The data is from a scientific study," and "The data are from a scientific study" can both be correct.

R103 Both are correct. Especially in the context you cited:

“How are you?” If you think someone is asking about your physical well-being, answer, “I feel well,” or “I don’t feel well.” If someone is asking about your emotional state, answer, “I feel good,” or “I don’t feel good.”

R131 What about this take?

Q: “How are you?”

A: “Hard as a rock. Suck my cock.”

“So” opening a sentence adds nothing. Try removing it and see what the removal does to context and meaning. Its removal does nothing - in this context, “so” is a verbal crutch.

I like that, R132!

What do we have to do to bring that into the lexicon?

I'll take a few up on their offer.

[quote] “So” opening a sentence adds nothing.

So true.

See, R135. You just proved the point. Had you simply said, "True," your sentence wouldn't lose any of its value or accuracy.

R136 Your logic would apply to common use of many adjectives and adverbs, then. You’d really hate speaking with the English, wouldn’t you?

Not only has to connect with but also. People tend to leave off the also.

[quote]See, [R135]. You just proved the point. Had you simply said, "True," your sentence wouldn't lose any of its value or accuracy.

I think that's exactly what he meant to illustrate, Captain Obvious.

[quote]Not only has to connect with but also.

Huh?

Upspeak is annoying to me. It always sound babyish and insecure.

Any use of language online that strives to affect an ultra detached, casual attitude, which always reads as the work of a desperately insecure individual striving to be considered 'cool' by random strangers. It's pitiful. The default mode of self-presentation online is so performative, .so unoriginal. The same lines and 'gags' repeated endlessly for years and years.

I stopped using "in regards to" and just started using "regarding". It just sounds cleaner.

“Also too.”

PICK ONE. YOU DO NOT NEED BOTH.

Bless your heart, R139. Aren't you sweet, darlin'?

“Begs the question” does not mean “raises the question,” but enough people have used it incorrectly that the incorrect usage has slithered into the language.

"Everyday" in place of "every day."

"Disinterested" in place of "uninterested" or "not interested."

Bored of instead of bored by.

Nice! R143, I agree.

I am from New Jersey, and find the term "on accident" very strange and grating.

Having lived in Seattle for several years, I don't get this "talk around" instead of talk about reference? How is it used in a sentence? Never knew of it until a couple of minutes ago.

So ... this one I find carries a note of doubt (awkwardness) where Romance languages would use a subjunctive. Start, or re-start, a conversation (or to be fancy, a "dialogue") after an awkward pause, as in "So, what do you feel are our options now?" It has often also come to be used now as a signal that a story, where the long is not likely to be made short, has begun.

A kudo to R147 for raising disinterested! Whenever I see someone online describe themselves as "discrete" the tune I Fall to Pieces pops into my head.

R150 “As you see on the agenda, today we’re going to have a discussion around some of the issues raised at the last meeting, and then we’ll drill down and have a more focused talk around two particular issues.”

One is "enamored of" something or someone else, not "with" or "by" it, not that I would tell someone how to correctly identify his amorous targets.

Possessive pronouns should be used in front of gerunds, not subjective or objective ones.

R151

Thanks for the example. I have no problem with that usage implying "centered" before around.

[quote]Are you from New Jersey? I said "on accident" for years.

On accident is NOT a New Jersey thing.

R153 Where I am from (DC), we talk “about” and have discussions “about” (or simply discuss) things. The “around” sounds wrong, but I’m sure it’s just a regional variance.

Oh! One regional expression *really* drives me nuts. A lot of people from New York and some from New Jersey say “I’m born and bred here,” or “I’m born in 1978.” I’ve noticed it among a few people I’ve met, and I hear it all the time on the Real Housewives of New York and from the Richards sisters on the Beverly Hills franchise.

“I’m born in New York.”

“I’m born in New York but Miami is what I am.”

About the only time that "I'm born in 1978" would be vaguely logical for me would be as part of a gathering that is subdivided by age, where the person wants to know which one of those smaller groups to join. ("I was" seems slightly formal)

SO, toodle-oo. at least she is funny. she seems to think this is perfectly acceptable.

[quote][R153] Where I am from (DC), we talk “about” and have discussions “about” (or simply discuss) things. The “around” sounds wrong, but I’m sure it’s just a regional variance.

Talk "around" something means to NOT discuss it. You're talking "around" the problem instead of actually talking ABOUT the problem.

R160 I’m telling you a bunch of people I know from the west coast “talk around” and “have discussions around” topics—using “around” when I would use “about.” Meaning to discuss those topics, not to avoid them.

I wonder what the suicide rate is for Grammar Anals?

[quote]I am from New Jersey, and find the term "on accident" very strange and grating.

Are you the WASP from either Short Hills or Morris County?

I was a high school English teacher for five minutes. My departure was hastened by wrong-headed administrators and credential instructors. I couldn't ask students to do anything repetitive or exact. No vocabulary tests, no grammar lessons. Definitions, rules, and drills were out. Few students could read beyond 4th grade level. The saddest part was that students realized that everything I was allowed to do in class was bullshit like group activities and "projects" instead of writing assignments. They were hungry for real teaching even as they resisted it.

All my childhood friends in suburban DC said “on accident.” I wasn’t allowed. On purpose, by accident. My mom would have it no other way.

R164 I worked with a BRILLIANT young woman who was home schooled in Illinois. Her family wasn’t religious at all. They had higher standards than the schools did, I think.

"Heighth" seems to be gaining acceptance. But it's: length, width and HEIGHT.

Even those Fixer Upper morons are saying "heighth"

The use of [italic]nauseous[/italic] when the speaker means [italic]nauseated[/italic]. It makes me nauseated (NOT nauseous).

The use of "a" when it should be "an." All the tv people are doing it. Even Obama did it!

r168: Somebody needs to tell Comey whenever he feels "slightly nauseous" because he fears he tipped the election to Trump. I feel extremely nauseated whenever I think of either one of them.

People who say "two twins" should be sent to prison.

THIS THREAD. What kind of brainless creature wrote the headline linked here?

Positivity.

[quote][R160] I’m telling you a bunch of people I know from the west coast “talk around” and “have discussions around” topics—using “around” when I would use “about.” Meaning to discuss those topics, not to avoid them.

I lived in Silicon Valley for a few years, and "discussion around" seems ok or at least not bad.

Bad "talk around" is just plain WRONG.

Grew up in Central Jersey and NO ONE said "on accident"

[quote]Are you the WASP from either Short Hills or Morris County?

I appreciate r169--I think this ignorance of knowing when to use "a" and "an" may stem basically from "Ebonics", which is another mess entirely that has degraded American English. That, along with the utter laziness and evasion of using correct grammar and spelling and then calling it "language evolution or change". People who uptalk and cannot or refuse to break themselves of that pernicious habit are as bad as little kids who can't stop wetting the bed.

Now for another error in usage: license plates that state one is an "alumni" of such and such college or university is incorrect. In Latin if you are male you are an alumnus, if female an alumna. Alumni is the plural. English has very few words which indicate gender in usage as all nouns are neuter, however, if one is blond, one is male. If one is blonde, one is female. Marion is a male name, Marian is a female name. Frances is a female name, Francis is a male name.

The "A" in front of words with vowels vs. "an" is a regional accent thing too. Lots of NY/NJ "outerborough" accents do it.

“I think this ignorance of knowing when to use "a" and "an" may stem basically from "Ebonics", which is another mess entirely that has degraded American English.”

I shouldn’t be, but I am rather astonished to see someone post this here, and in 2018. I suppose the person who wrote this will be marching in DC this weekend in a red MAGA hat.

Black Americans have not “degraded” the English language. Go back to 1957.

r178, If you had read the post thoroughly and not leaped to some stupid conclusion, you will notice that Black Americans were never mentioned. I voted for Hillary Clinton and I am well aware of what year it is, so why don't you just blow it out your ass along with your "astonishment"?!

You said Ebonics are degrading the language, R179. How exactly do you define that term without referring to the language of black Americans?

The "a" vs "an" is because of bad schooling, and nothing else. My teachers kept telling me, "it's 'an' when the word starts with a vowel." What the teachers should have said was, ". . . a vowel SOUND."

"An university" and "a hour" sounds pretty stupid. In the first case, the "u" sounds like a "y" and in the second, the "h" is silent for the vast majority of English speakers.

With "an historical" vs "a historical," I try to just cope because I do say the initial "h" and so it does bug me to hear "an," but I know some people do drop the initial "h."

r180

From Linguistic Society of America website:

What do people think of Ebonics?

That depends on whom you ask. Black writers from Paul Laurence Dunbar to Zora Neale Hurston to August Wilson have made extensive use of it in their work, and some, like James Baldwin ("this passion, this skill, ... this incredible music."), Toni Morrison, and June Jordan have praised it explicitly. Black preachers and comedians and singers, especially rappers, also use it for dramatic or realistic effect. But many other people, black and white, regard it as a sign of limited education or sophistication, as a legacy of slavery or an impediment to socioeconomic mobility. Some deny its existence (like the black Chicagoan whose words "Ain't nobody here talkin' no Ebonics" belied his claim). Others deprecate it (like Maya Angelou, who found the Oakland School Board's 1996 Ebonics resolutions "very threatening" although she uses Ebonics herself in her poems, e.g. "The Pusher").

Where did Ebonics come from?

On this point, linguists are quite divided. Some emphasize its English origins, pointing to the fact that most of the vocabulary of Ebonics is from English and that much of its pronunciation (e.g. pronouncing final th as f) and grammar (e.g. double negatives, "I don't want none") could have come from the nonstandard dialects of English indentured servants and other workers with whom African slaves interacted.

I think from the above one might conclude that "Ebonics" isn't necessarily as Black as much as it may be Southern American in origin and development. If you had taken the attitude of "asking why" about Ebonics instead of leaping to a falsehood about someone you never met then there could have been a dialog like this to begin with. Otherwise, if you insult someone and tell them to go back to 1957, you will get an insult right back which isn't very productive.....

Thru...not a word, drives me nuts and shows how we have trashed the English language

"Anyways" drives me insane--sounds so ignorant. It's anyway folks; anyways is not a word. I feel better now.

“I could care less” which means the opposite to what the speaker is trying to convey.

Frankly, my dear, I give several damns.

R163

Yes, Morris County. Why?

“Use to be”.

Some Americans never learned to use "thee" before a vowel and say things like "thuh airport."

[quote]Thru...not a word, drives me nuts and shows [bold]how we have trashed the English language[/bold]

Through and through.

R187 I guess you are not r175. Or do you consider Morris County "central"?

As to "why?", I just like to assure myself that I've been paying attention. You write in a certain, identifiable tone, and I wanted to make sure you're the guy I remembered.

In any case, my mother, who, like me and r175, grew up in central Jersey, used to make fun of me for saying "on accident." If it isn't a New Jerseyism, I don't know where I could have gotten it, other than through the logic, now shown to be specious, that the opposite of "on purpose" has to be "on accident."

I think people use "a" instead of "an" in speaking sometimes because they say "a" before they know exactly what their next word is going to be. It's not based on anything racial.

As far as blacks saying "a" instead of "an," it may be an Ebonics thing. I have been going to Alcoholics Anonymous meetings for decades. Sometimes I hear a black person say "a alcoholic." Actually, it's closer to "a acoholic (sic)," but that's another matter. Nothing racist about it. Just something I've noticed over the years.

I need to get educated vs get my education..

[quote]People who think "dove" is the past tense of "dive." It's "dived."

Still, "dove" sounds better to me. And I'm nearly always in favor of the really correct alternative. But in this instance, I differ. But thank you for bringing it up.

Found on many a gay personal ad: I'm looking for a dominate man. OH DEAR!

Regarding some of these annoying word usages. They are OLD. "Loan" as a verb has been used since the 13th century. "Dove" as the past tense of Dive has been used for at least 2 centuries. Likewise with "snuck", but dove is considered a reasonable past tense for dive (i.e., it can be used in formal writing, especially in the US), but snuck is still considered informal. "Nother" as a separate word dates back to the 13th century as well. But some people feel that the expression "that's a whole nother kettle of fish" is like abso-fuckin-lutely - where the word "whole" has split up the word "another", just as "fuckin" splits up absolutely.

I like fresh uses of language in speech. It makes us pay more attention and we smile. We all use drag-speak, for instance. GUURRL - or "Miss Thing". But there's a difference between written English and spoken English, especially when we don't know who might ultimately be reading our words. There, clarity is paramount, and regionalisms and slang expressions have to be dropped out.

Someone above perfectly captured what I call "meeting-speak". "Drill down" "we'll have a discussion around these two topics" I don't think people use these terms so much in every day speech, but they definitely come up commonly in meetings.

A lot of these usages are fads. I don't think "conversate" will stick around long - at least I hope not.

“We all use drag-speak”, R195? No, we don’t.

My most hated word which is 100% wrong in every way, yet has somehow been rendered acceptable is "conversate."

I heard it used three times on TV this week. It makes my hair hurt.

All of these

[quote]Some Americans never learned to use "thee" before a vowel and say things like "thuh airport."

No American uses it that way. UK English.

[quote]No American uses it that way. UK English.

Educated Americans do, because they realize that saying "thuh end" makes them sound ignorant as fuck.

[quote]"Irregardless" (for "regardless") reminds me of "inflammable" (for "flammable ").

Ok. Fuck the new words. Can we please get together and FIX THIS STUPID WORD.

It doesn't make sense in English and I'm pretty sure that I don't speak Latin.

[quote]Educated Americans do, because they realize that saying "thuh end" makes them sound ignorant as fuck.

No they dont, only pretentious queens say it that way, which obviously you are. And only ignorant fucks need to use foul language to make their point.

I pronounce "the end" as "th' yend."

People who say "incentivize", "monetize", "weaponize" remind me of Kingfish in "Amos and Andy", only they're not funny.

"What hotel are you staying at?"

Guilty. I was traveling in a foreign country and once asked a shop clerk--it was a touristy area so I was reasonably sure he spoke some English: "What time are you open until?" At least now I manage to ask, "What time do you close?"

No wonder the rest of the world laughs at you Americans, R202. And they did long before your current president took office.

[Quote]Now for another error in usage: license plates that state one is an "alumni" of such and such college or university is incorrect. In Latin if you are male you are an alumnus, if female an alumna. Alumni is the plural.

So you think states should make different license plates based on whether the registrant is a male or female to satisfy your peeve?

Why can't you see it meaning, "The person driving this vehicle is one of many alumni of Hortense University School of Basket Weaving"?

[Quote]"What hotel are you staying at?"

While technically you're not supposed to end a sentence with a preposition, this phrase has become ingrained into our language. I think it's because it flows off the tongue better than "At what hotel are you staying?"

The unfortunate fact that a phrase has "become ingrained into" our language doesn't make it correct or acceptable. This kind of reasoning is the primary cause of today's sloppiness.

What != Which

It's perfectly fine to end a sentence with a preposition.

142 you are a pretentious, incomprehensible fuck.

146 you are almost as bad. why don't you bother to tell us what it "does" mean, then?

178 yes, black Americans have degraded the language, maybe because they originally learned it from Southern white crackers. "Go back to 1957" is not an insult unless you are a moron.

"Up with which I will not put" is something I no longer put up with.

I am the de facto editor at my office and was an editor for a decade before I had this job. My boss, who retains plenty of regional idiomatic “mistakes” from his Michigan upbringing, respects me in part because I have a facility with language. To me, he is the worst language-related offender I know because he corrects anyone anytime, regardless of the setting, when they make basic grammatical mistakes, even when those mistakes are part of common speech. My interpretation of language rules is that they serve two primary purposes: first, they are meant to facilitate clear and effective communication with as little ambiguity as possible. Second, grammar rules double as a kind of written etiquette, which was likewise developed to establish clear boundaries so as to avoid unnecessary conflicts and confusion among people. Language throughout most of human history, to our knowledge, was not standardized and its standardization isn’t capable of freezing it in stone forever so that it will never evolve. Standardization is a means by which to establish boundaries to ease communication and to relieve conflict. When people invoke rules to embarrass others, whether the rule is what fork to use or the plurality or singularity of the word data, the person who attempts to embarrass other people by asserting know-it-all status is an asshole. I have been that asshole at times when someone has said something egregious many times over, but most of the time, correcting grammar according to hard-and-fast rules is best left to written words and not to conversation. Every time I hear someone interrupt a person mid-conversation to point out a dangling participle or to say “ME, NOT I. BETWEEN YOU AND ME,” it makes me think that the “corrector” is an insecure, closed-minded and myopic jerk who canNot think beyond rules, and I have a pretty complete character sketch of such people in mind, similar to Dorothy Zbornak’s author friend who invited her to an exclusive, restricted country club. Similar to the sorts of people whose interior monologue tells them that the way black people speak, and the way Southern people speak, and the way people from New Jersey speak, and the way people who didn’t attend their private, Christian grammar school speak, reveals an unformed, limited-capacity mind, when in reality the opposite is more likely true. It’s worth listening to Maya Angeou’s and Toni Morrison’s take on black American language, how it is a whole other language based on a whole other history and type of thought, and how many black Americans are effectively bilingual, but in such a way that their language still is regarded as inferior and savage—just as the Brits once regarded Gaelic and indigenous speakers—but more realistically, it adds nuance and greater depth to their perceptions by virtue of being diminished and thought of as ignorant when in practice those who deem them to be ignorant are ignorant of how “ebonics” came to be and why such manners of speech have been retained and are used as common speech. There is nothing inferior about it; however, there is a cultural identity and a history embedded in it that many white people try to exterminate without acknowledging that their attitude toward the language is a simple manifestation of the same sort of attitude that led colonists to take active measures to exterminate native North American languages and replace them with their own “correct” one.

R R R

[quote]"Irregardless" (for "regardless") reminds me of "inflammable" (for "flammable ").

[quote]Ok. Fuck the new words. Can we please get together and FIX THIS STUPID WORD.

[quote]It doesn't make sense in English and I'm pretty sure that I don't speak Latin.

Except that "flammable" is seemingly the word created to compensate for ignorance.

[quote]Inflammable is derived from the word inflame (sometimes spelled enflame), and precedes the invention of the word flammable. The first syllable, in, is often confused for the negative prefix in- which is like the latin prefix un- (see: inconspicuous, inescapable, indestructible, etc…). The in- prefix in the case of inflammable is derived from the Latin prefix en-, meaning “to cause (a person or thing) to be in” (like enslave, encourage, etc…).

[quote]With all this confusion behind the definition of the word inflammable, the National Fire Protection Association urged Americans in the 1920s to start using the word flammable to avoid confusion and prevent fires because they thought people may mistake inflammable as meaning not being able to burn.

[QUOTE]R146 you are almost as bad. why don't you bother to tell us what it "does" mean, then?

You'll be sorry you asked.

[Quote]I always liked to split an infinitive, too.

You're very generous. I don't split these often.

r1212 - FFS, use the "r" in front of the response.

[quote]142 you are a pretentious, incomprehensible fuck.

While I disagree with the premise, the implicit joke is hilarious, even more if the joke is unintentional.

[quote]146 you are almost as bad. why don't you bother to tell us what it "does" mean, then?

This mentality is what is wrong with education today. People expect information to be spoon fed to them. If you don't know something, look it up yourself. The rest of us knew what both the problem and r146's gripe was. It's not like the topic required specialized knowledge acquired from decades of experience and education.

Any discussion hinges upon the participants having a basic body of knowledge. The fact that the issue was flagged by someone in this thread should have been more than sufficient for someone to take the next step if he truly wanted to learn something.

[quote]178 yes, black Americans have degraded the language, maybe because they originally learned it from Southern white crackers. "Go back to 1957" is not an insult unless you are a moron.

Well, as a practical matter, one could argue that Americans have degraded the ENGLISH language, as their usage is often wrong (teams is vs. team are). Or, that British people have "degraded" some Germanic language. The notion of "degradation" is a qualitative judgment. So no, black Americans have not "degraded" the language.

They have changed it. Now, whether those changes contribute to better clarity, precision, and understanding in communication within the speaking population is a separate question. The fact that it may be less precise to an "outsider" is tantamount to saying that French is less precise because people who speak Latin cannot understand them.

Oh, and telling someone to go back to 1957 is an insult in the context used. Language is as much about connotative meaning as it is the denotative meanings we're discussing in this thread.

Meanwhile all my French mother-tongue students, in business and STEM, write passable English and 1/3 write fluently with impeccable structure.

[quote][R1212] - FFS, use the "r" in front of the response.

But not the "1" you inserted, r219.

FFS ^

R219 I appreciate your thoughtfulness. Regarding the “contributing to bettet clarity,” etc. comment, there’s another aspect of language that I don’t blame us American people for not acknowleding because Webster and others intentionally “degraded” English for the purpose of solely valuing expediency and practical application of language.

Webster’s New American Dictionary was a politically motivated book, which sought to reform language (and therefore thought) to be more Puritanical in the sense that Americanized spellings and newly American words are meant to be ultra-conservative and not “waste” letters or vocabulary on what Puritan-type Americans regarded as useless ornamentation. This is the specific reason “colour” became “color,” etc. Brits could justifiably call this the corruption of their language. Some words were cut out entirely to reduce our vocabulary because those words were regarded as “not useful.”

I once queried a UK literary agent, and she responded that she does not represent American authors because our language and our ways of thinking are fundamentally different. I thought that was snooty, but over time I have come to recognize what she meant.

The United Kingdom—the origin of English, let’s remember—uses a language that had more overt influence from French, doesn’t it (n’est-ce pas?)? Whereas, American people do not tolerate “wasted” (nuanced) use of language without overt purpose. Ornamentation for the sake of aesthetic appeal is not appreciated here—thank Webster and Hemingway for the no-style American style.

Here, it’s about practical application of words, as little nuance as possible, and no time wasted on beauty or eccentricities that provoke a wandering imagination. There’s a reason the UK gives us bestselling Harry Potter and Le Carre, and here we have formulaic Grisham and imaginative but stylistically barren Stephen King at the top of our charts.

And that brings us to black American speech. It’s often less straightforward, less conformist, less adherent to rules, more imbued with cultural nuance, and it’s used to communicate among a subculture of people whom many white people feel should conform and integrate with “proper society,” whereas some of us white people have come to understand, let’s say since Hurricane Katrina, that black people have been intentionally ghettoized and kept within their own geographic and institutional boundaries, as we dehumanize them and still, even in 2018, regard their eccentric manners of speaking as “degenerate” or degraded-because-of-ignorance versions of proper American English. Nope. I came to understand the poetry—and that means both the style of the language usage and the cultural history imbued within it—in an African American literature class in college. I found the language beautiful and provocative and compelling and so I took more of the classes. From the novel “Push” to slave narratives to Toni Morrison, who applies “black English” in a way that I read as an even more psychologically refined version of Faulkner’s ingenius Southern American use of language, I realized that “black American” is an extraordinarily nuanced, often encantatory system of language that is innately poetic. Even the way black American people speak has a cadence that is inherently poetic, likely a result of African influences mixed with oral tradition from American slave songs. It’s obvious when you listen to music. White people usually sound stupid when rapping because we do not have a musical manner of speaking, whereas black American use of language has a musical cadence. Black church music is more colorful (no pun intended) and has influenced and represents the difference between WASP-y Euro-American speech and thought—which always conforms to unchanging “correct” standard and rejects flourishes—while black American language and song, from jazz to church music to everyday speech, is based on a different operating system and encourages more innovative usage. Different, not wrong, not inferior, not corruptive, not threatening.

TLDR

The agent was being snooty about it, and now you're being a self-loathing American.

Ad of 2015, I am a self-loathing American. It has nothing to do with language, except...

[quote]TLDR

TFP;DR

Some of the things that annoy you are regionalisms and some are just because you've decided to live among morons. And black Americans make up 11 percent of the country, they have hardly degraded any kind of American speech. If white people are no longer speaking properly, that's on white people. Stop blaming black people for every damned thing.

People who say “ebonics have degraded the English language” and “I voted for Hillary!” are the most insidious of the sort of people who would march in Washington this weekend if there were no cameras.

R191 - is my tone a bad thing?

Jack in the Box: Juiciest, Butteriest, Craviest!

[quote]Stop blaming black people for every damned thing.

Not even "conversate"?

[quote][R191] - is my tone a bad thing?

No. Just observable, given the NJ hint.

[quote]Jack in the Box: Juiciest, Butteriest, Craviest!

What???

R169 here. I don't think the - a vs an - use is due to ebonics. Too many people are doing it now. It is a way of emphasizing something. The A becomes the strongest word in the sentence. It is said a little louder and stronger than other words. Jake Tapper does it. Like this:

Trumps latest tweet is A example of his constant use of false claims.

Sounds dumb, r233, obviating Tapper's presumed attempt at emphasis.

"Text" for "texted."

"So" is used now by some in place of the interjection, "well."

Those three words are Jack's new slogan.

How are you? I'm good.

Yep, less instead of fewer is definitely mainstream now. I've given up on it.

The people writing for most of these blogs (even the better ones like the late Gawker) are millennials who've never been taught anything about grammar, syntax and proper word usage, and the blogs reflect this--particularly "less" for "fewer" and "moreso." It's no surprise that these abuses have seeped into the culture.

Her and I

Email Joe and I. NO.....it is Joe and ME. WTF.

Nobody knows how to use it, and everyone says blank and I to everything.

Funny, R235, a few years ago I got into a friendly debate with two other people at work who insisted "texted" wasn't a word.

Judgment can now be spelled judgement.

Shouldn't it be "what hotel are you staying IN?"

[quote] Be glad that the word "mightn't" is no longer a proper word; "Mightn't we have .......... ."

I read a novel or play from the early 1920s by an English author, where a character asked "Usedn't there to be a desk in that corner?" Both the author & the character were upperclass British, so I assume that was proper at that time.

[Quote]Judgment can now be spelled judgement

And canceled can be spelled cancelled.

I shan't mind if others say "mightn't".

As language evolves it should evolve for the better, which means evolving away from usage such as "snuck", ignorance of when to use "a" vs "an" or placing yourself last in the phrase "she/he and I" which of course is NOT "ME and HER/HIM". While watching Judge Judy I sometimes see her wearily correcting the scumbags who consistently use bad grammar in her courtroom and much of it is to tell them it's "she and I". Part of the problem too is that people are often resentful and puzzled when corrected which compounds the problem. Ignorance is bliss in more ways than one I suppose.

Now for another very annoying trend that has developed recently: when ordering from a menu in a restaurant many people, usually younger, will say "I will DO such and such item" instead of "I will HAVE (or WOULD LIKE) such and such item". How does one DO an order of food? Is it something like GOING when one really means SAYING? "Well I go ' why would he tell you to go fuck yourself'? Then she goes, 'well maybe he's sick of fucking my old, tired twat'".

Language "evolution" is never an excuse for shitty, lazy, incorrect, painful sounding usage of the language.

Withnail and I.

R247 has too much time on his hands.

r249--Not as much time as you do apparently. Go fuck yourself.

Girls, girls, you and she are [italic]both[/italic] petty.

Some editor you are, R214/R224. Have you ever been introduced to the concept of brevity, or the notion that good writing is vigorous (credit to Strunk and White)? You may have made some good points, but who's to know without wading through your posts?

[quote]Judgment can now be spelled judgement.

In England.

Don't forget paragraphs, r252.

From the current DL thread THE MEG:

[quote]Jason was hot, but the dialogue and plot were cliche

"Shootin' da cops and fuckin' da ho's. Me and bros already knows."

How about this: Go out and get a real job.

Am I the only person who remembers when videos and pamphlets were informative, not "informational"?

"Journey"

My weight-loss journey.

My minimalism journey.

My buddha bowl journey. (Just heard this one on YouTube.)

Unless it involves traveling it is not a journey.

Not using the possessive.

“Eating out is better than Joe cooking food”

Should be ”Eating out is better than Joe’s cooking food.”

The former has become so common, I hear TV commentators and news anchor no longer use the possessive.

[quote] The former has become so common, I hear TV commentators and news anchor no longer use the possessive.

At the same time that people are dropping the possessive where it's needed, they're using the possessive form for plurals ("Should we have hamburger's or taco's for dinner?")

I think R260's point about improper use of the possessive is the reason behind R259's observation. People just don't know how to use apostrophes and so they avoid them when possible.

Could one say r259 that the possessive may be understood? It would be correct saying "Joe cooking the food", wouldn't it? Or it can be seen as a statement within a statement--Joe cooking food is a verb (?) unless cooking is a gerund (??).

r261 The abysmal state of grammar instruction today has given rise to the clueless use of apostrophes. I really think anyone under the age of 50 thinks apostrophes are mere decorations. At work I noticed a sign at the coffee station that said "we need more cup's please". So I circled the apostrophe and put an arrow to a note that said "the plural of cup does not need an apostrophe". The next thing I knew my note was crossed out and the apostrophe remained. At that I tore out the apostrophe and re-wrote the note. This is what I mean when I say that millennials are so unused to being treated other than special little snowflakes that they cannot conceive of themselves ever being wrong or pointed out as stupid and ignorant. Eventually we did get some more paper coffee cups though.

R262, if I were the supply person, I would have refused to provide more cups until a properly spelled & punctuated (or unpunctuated, in your example) written request was posted.

Whenever I hear newscasters say, "The authorities arrived to try and calm the situation," I die.

Freebie: "The authorities arrived to try to calm the situation."

Well, R264, at least the authorities weren't "efforting to upright" the crashed truck.

^^ Try again.

I feel BADLY that so few know how to write and to speak properly. This aberration afflicts many upper-middle and upper-class Americans.

[quote] “Eating out is better than Joe cooking food” Should be ”Eating out is better than Joe’s cooking food.”

I hate both of those sentences. For one thing, there's no need to specify food—what else would Joe be cooking? For another, I don't know, both just sound awkward. I'd go with something more like, "Eating out is better than having Joe cook."

^^ C'mon, let's give Joe credit: "Joe's cooking is better than eating out."

the bastard brother to WOKE: S H O O K. puleeeeese.

Let's just eat Joe out.

I couldn't tell if r259 was referring to the food Joe was cooking, or that he is cooking food. If the apostrophe is removed, "Eating out is better than Joe is cooking food" makes no sense.

Nahh, I'll pass on Joe: He can't cook.

R6 Meathead pointed that out to Archie Bunker once and he said this is why people don't like you; or something like that; it drove me nuts when I learned 'loan' was an acceptable verb.

when you think about it, it's all so ironical.

We now hear ... "couple days" and "couple weeks." The phrase is "Couple OF days" and "Couple OF weeks,"

R247 as for Judge Judy correcting grammar, when will her honor stop telling us she feels "badly?"

"Eating out is better than eating Joe's cooking."

Right on R277. A stellar example of one who ought to know better.

I saw what you did there, R267!

(if not, sorry to hear of the nerve damage)

[quote] I really think anyone under the age of 50 thinks apostrophes are mere decorations.

The same can be said for commas. Many people insert commas arbitrarily. The only rule they have been taught is to use a comma where you would pause while reading the sentence.

I honestly believe anybody under the age of 50 considers the rules of English grammar to be merely suggestions.

"I axed them for an answer."

"I seen it."

Well OP, are you surprised at the way your thread "evolved"?

Even better, r283: "I seent it!

Arrrgh! I forgot my closing quotation marks!

"I seent it!"

"Ow'n know" for "I don't know" -

"Addicting" and "Disrespecting" really piss me off. And all these assholes that lately reply to a question with "So, "

Nouns used as adjectives - this one is widespread:

“That was so cliche”.

“She wore a sequin dress”.

“For dinner last night I had a grill cheese sandwich.

“I’ve been crazy busy”.

“That dress is genius”.

On the HOT BENCH television show just now, one of the judges said "you are suing both she and Will."

For many years now, newscasters frequently begin a report with a sentence in which the correct tense of a verb is replaced with its present participle form; for example, "The President announcing today new tariffs on Chinese steel." I'm not sure why; maybe it's to suggest the report's developing nature. But it's still wrong. I swear I first heard this incorrect usage being practiced wholesale on the Today Show, during the Katie Couric years.

I'm annoyed by the use of "a couple" to mean "a few". "A couple" means "two".

[quote]I’m a little put off when people reply with “I’m well” to “how are you”

If you ask someone "how are you?" I don't think you can object when they tell you. The question is about someone's health and well-being, so where's the problem? (I've also seen the opposite objection, that "I'm good" is not an appropriate response, since you're not asking about someone's morality.) If you want to know how someone's day is going, you can always ask that.

R103, would you also find it pretentious if someone answered "I'm fine, thanks"?

Not an expression, but I hate the pronunciation of "caramel" with two syllables: It's ca-ra-mel, not "cahr-mul." Same with "carmelization" (which I sometimes see spelled that way) versus caramelization. Ughh. It drives me up the wall, but the Oxford Dictionary site says that battle has been lost.

R292, according to Webster's 9th New Collegiate Dictionary, a "couple" can now be used to mean several.

One must keep changing with the times, as one lives them.....

I guess.

r294 So does Oxford. Both dictionaries consider many of the examples of incorrect usage cited on this thread to be acceptable, often under the tag "informal". That's the unfortunate "now considered okay" part of OP's thread title.

When I first moved to the US (California) many years ago, it took me a while to discover that when people ask "How are you?" they are really just saying hello and don't expect an answer other than a "How are you?" in return. It takes them aback when you actually respond by telling them briefly about your day.

R292 That drives me INSANE. It makes them all sound ill informed to me, which is a terrible feeling to get from a news reader. I don’t watch the news often because of it. They speak in headlines, often without verbs at all when they introduce stories, and they usually use -ing endings when they should not.

TV shows described as "fresh."

r297 They are not even speaking in headlines. If they were, they would say something like "(The) President announces new tariffs on Chinese steel," with the verb in present tense. I would find that halfway tolerable. But I just can't stand the use of the present participle.

Well you never notice the formal be + to infinitive in English? It's a real thing. Officials and VIPS.

The President is to meet with French President Macron at noon, today, at a WH.......

The present progressive can be used for the present and for any arrangement and can be substituted for the be + to infinitive or the future.

The President is meeting with French President Macron at noon.... If its in the future.

I haven't heard the dropping of the auxiliary "to be" - that you mention - The President meeting today with.... If its a recap, after the fact. EXCEPT, if there is video playing, and then it is in reference to the visual and is an acceptable "historic present." The historical present is underused in English.

I don't have too much of a problem with a couple meaning of few as in "Yeah, I think they have a couple of vegetarian menu items" when in reality there are three or four.

R296 would hate the Indian usage "My toe is paining me."

They do speak in headlines to open broadcasts. “President Trump Too Angry for His Own Good? Sixteen Dogs, Four Chickens New Friends in Forest Fire Region, coming up next.”

r300 Listen more closely. American news readers drop "to be" on the first sentence of a report all the time. The examples you cite sound a lot more BBC.

Another one I wonder about: I thought "diction" referred to word choice. I heard it used to mean elocution. I looked it up and see it means both. So this thread taught me I've been harrumphing for no reason all this time.

R13 YES. Came into this thread for this one. I sit amongst millennials all day who say things like "I literally died last night, I was so bored." Umm, no you fucking didn't, you moron.

r304 "Diction" is one of those words that will probably die out because no one's sure what it means anymore.

r305 But you wish he or she did.

Orientated.

different than

I still use different from, but I'm in the minority.

And some people use "different to" and it's not incorrect. Just not American usage.

“Genius” as an adjective.

“Gift” as a verb.

"Ax" in now being substituted for "axe" which is the correct spelling.

^^ the worst.

R312

Sheidlower says you can trace "ax" back to the eighth century. The pronunciation derives from the Old English verb "acsian." Chaucer used "ax." It's in the first complete English translation of the Bible (the Coverdale Bible): "Axe and it shall be given."

"So at that point it wasn't a mark of people who weren't highly educated or people who were in the working class," Stanford University linguist John Rickford says. He says it's hard to pin-point why "ax" stopped being popular but stayed put in the American South and the Carribbean, where he's originally from. "But over time it became a marker of identity," he says.

"Coronated" makes me want to smash things.

Coronated is a new one for me. What's the proper term?

r311 The frequent conflation of noun and verb into a single word makes me think we already live in the age described in the Appendix to 1984.

r316 Crowned

Thanks, R318.

"Different to" I usually find irritating (orientated, not so much), but accept that it's Commonwealth standard (similar to "talking to" rather than "talking with").

R311 - afraid "text" as a verb is here to stay.

I think less of anyone who uses "preventative" instead of "preventive". I saw it on a pamphlet in my doctor's office once & showed it to her -- she gasped & promised to complain to the HMO administration (the pamphlet has disappeared). She learned English as a second language & seems to respect it more than native speakers tend to do.

R320 R311 here - even I use “text” as a verb! So I admit the double standard! But “gift” as a verb or “genius” as an adjective are toe-curling for me.

r321 There are lots of pairs of words that do this, (are used the same way but with a different ending) and they aren't really wrong - they just strike some people as wrong because they were taught that there was only one correct form:

"Preventive and preventative belong to the troublingly inconsistent class of -tive/tative word pairs that also includes interpretive/interpretative, exploitive/exploitative, authoritive/authoritative, and many others. What makes these pairs so troubling is that they have consistently flouted any rules English authorities have attempted to impose, and there is no consistency in how they are formed. What form becomes preferred is decided by usage, and usage is rarely guided by concerns of logic or consistency."

I'm comfortable with preventative and authoritative, but not interpretative.

Fulsome to mean full as in "a more fulsome response is expected soon." It does give me a laugh knowing the dictionary definition of the word.

I never heard "different to" before this thread. I guess I'm different to some of you.

R325: Brits say that instead of "different than."

Is "different to" correct British usage? I'm unclear.

I don't hear it often, but I've heard "bespoke" to mean "well spoken" (which, by the way, is not hyphenated).

"Bespoke" means "custom-made," as in "bespoke tailors" (a very British thing, n'est-ce pas?)

I usually say "different from," but "different than" does not curdle my ear wax.

r328 Hence, my post.

R310, what’s wrong with genius as an adjective?

I can’t “phantom” (heard this one a day ago!) why that would be a problem.

Because it’s a noun, R331.

It’s also an adjective, though.

R332 see:

r334 "Informal"

Informal or not, it’s not being used incorrectly. “Genius” can be both a noun and an adjective.

Woke. Please stop. It's stupid.

Whatnot.

"He's smarter than me."

It should be "He's smarter than I."

The British often laugh at Americans for greetings like 'How are you?"

But they have the most ridiculous expressions ever and use them all the time. "Hey, mate, you all right?" "That's a bit of alright."

The list goes on and on.

"Veggie", beloved of fraus and nitwits everywhere, rules this thread.

How about some brekkie, r341?

R340, I've never understood why 'how are you?' bothers non-Americans so much. How difficult is it to understand that it's a meaningless greeting which doesn't require a genuine answer? It's not like other countries don't have greetings and phrases that function in the same way.

[quote]"He's smarter than me."

[quote]It should be "He's smarter than I."

Not if the statement is actually true, it isn't.

Acrost for across.

R327 Yes, old boy it is correct usage. Different from is acceptable British usage also, but there are certain applications where one is preferable to the other. Different "than" sounds very off to my ear, though I have lived amongst you Americans since 1998.

R345 Thanks for reminding me of an old friend who has since gone on to his great reward. He had an odd predilection to pronounce wrought iron as "Roth Iron" too.

Just heard Dinah Washington on the radio singing "We'll turn Manhattan into a aisle of joy."

[quote]We'll turn Manhattan into a aisle of joy

When I googled this, a pic of Twitler was rendered. I clicked away.

The Grammar Police must be having a pretty great life if they have time to worry about our ignorance of grammar.

Ridiculous euphemisms for death such as “passed” and “gone to his great reward”.

I've now gotten to know the difference between 'pled' and 'pleaded'. They're both acceptable. I will probably have to use them interchangeably.

I hate it when people say they ‘ lost’ a loved one when that person has died. I know it is a euphemism but every time I hear it, I swallow the urge to tell them if they think really hard they might remember where they put them.

r351 r353 But that's the whole point of euphemisms, substituting a less unpleasant expression for something terrible like death. I don't think they count as incorrect usage.

R353 & R351 You may not like euphemisms for death, but they do not constitute grammar violations. A few days ago I heard segments of an old interview with Aretha Franklin on NPR, and I was quite surprised to hear a big one: Ms. Franklin said, "yes and they grandchildren loved looking at the pictures". I would have expected better from her. Now that my friends is a real one.

You’re right, R354 (R351 here) - euphemisms like these aren’t incorrect useage but they drive me up the wall. We were all born, we are all going to die. Hiding behind fluffy ridiculousness like “passed” is just denying the inevitable.

“Gifted” for “gave”. “Gift” for “give”.

This atrocity seems relatively recent - how did it start?

R357 To use gift as a verb is quite common in British usage.

I’m sure that it is, R358 (I’m not American, by the way, but it has become more widespread here in Australia). But common usage doesn’t necessarily equate to correct usage.

Fair enough R359. I shall look it up now. I have heard smart older people use it as a verb, so I had assumed it was acceptable.

We'll turn Manhattan into an isle of joy.................

R359 Grammarist thinks it acceptable, but states it is British Usage. Some claim it has been used as a verb for nearly 500 years, whereas most linguists agree it has been in common use since the beginning of the seventeenth century. Apparently Americans hate it. Oxford gives many examples. In the Oxford "Learners Dictionary" it states it is common in journalism, and provides many instances. I find here in the U.S. that re-gift is most popular as a verb, but little occurence otherwise. I have tried not to irritate the Americans further whilst living here; they detest British English, at least in Chicago they do. (and many on DL)

Many now say "hysterical" when they really mean "hilarious". And wouldn't you know it, Oxford now considers this acceptable use, again under the "informal" tag.

"Hysterical" has stood in for "hilarious" for decades, r363. I can't remember a time when it didn't, at least in the US, and I am probably older than you.

R364 People use the expression all the time in Britain, not just older people.

R362

I don't so much hate British English, as find it tedious when British people howl that American is a separate language and should not be considered as English. I find it quaint when British people say things like 10 past and 20 till as time expressions.

"Gifted" to me brings up HIV infection. If English people use gift as a verb such as "I gifted him a business class ticket to Bangkok for Christmas" then NO!

In one of the hundred Chris Watts threads, some cretin said "have began" instead of "have begun." Probably huffing nitrous and amyl while chewing lead chips and having excessive home permanents.

"Troop" used to mean an individual soldier. It's ubiquitous in reporting on military deaths as in "how many troops were killed." When did it shift away from meaning plural?

How about "jealous" in place of "envious"?

I like "jealous." I like pissing off the "envious, not jealous" queen.

Just to be clear, I am the queen of many things but “envious not jealous” is not one of them.

I didn't think, nor did I say, you were, r371.

R366 Usage very often springs from a more appropriate instance as a finer point, becoming aplicable to almost everything. The distinction can be lost, and the use sort of permeates. There should be no outrage with gift as a verb... even those who sit on the usage committee at Oxford agree, there are vexing "new" words that they reluctantly allow as informal, or colloquial, yet gift as a verb is anything but new. It is a synonym for bequeath, if one studies the history of give, it comes from the word gift. Oxford uses the following as an outstanding example when it is more appropriate than give. For her birthday, we gifted her a puppy. It clarifies they did not merely just present her with a puppy, but specifically that it was her birthday gift. I do not see the problem here. To say we gave, or give as a gift would be redundant.

How much clarification does "We gave her a puppy on her birthday" or "... for her birthday" really require?

"Gift" as a verb is already redundant. It has a verb as a root word. That word is "give."

I think there are more egregious words or uses that have become standard than "gift as a verb". Americans obviously feel very different about the matter.

I'm not American. I had thought that "gift" as a verb was much more common in the US than elsewhere.

I don't know if it's becoming acceptable, but the misspelling "to" for "too" as an intensifier ("Is my Sunday gravy to spicy?") seems to be taking over.

r375, no, it's like hearing fingernails on a chalkboard, when I read "to" when "too" is the word needed. It is NOT acceptable.

R377 & R374 After the polite Australian posted, I read on up on the matter for a half hour. According to Oxford, and other sources, gift came first from Middle-German, into the English language. It does NOT stem from give as the root (quite the opposite really). Don't shoot the messenger, Oxford, et al declares it acceptable usage. You two are a bit over exaggerating how bloody awful the "sound" of it is. As very few Americans use it as a verb, how many British people are really bothering you with it day-to-day? R377, I do however concur with you on to/too. This is not accepted under any circumstances I am aware of.

"Gifted" and "gifting" also irritate me. Whatver happened to "gave" and "giving?"

Take it up with Oxford, and the advisory boards for usage at the other dictionaries then R379 (along with the rest here) No one is going to prevent you, Americans, or Australians from your usage. It just simply IS accepted standard usage in British English. You don't have to like it! I highly doubt you shall carry any weight with the powers that be however.

The incorrect use of an apostrophe in a plural noun seems common. Especially on signs.

They were selling roasted Hatch chiles at the grocery store, and the sign said "Hatch Chile's."

"over exaggerated."

"Exaggerated" is all you need.

Not in this particular case R382! I find it funny (not ha ha) as an expatriate here how many Americans have a problem with British English. It is troll-like really. I cannot believe any of you either suffer so many British colleagues, or neighbours, so it is an absurd reaction, which deserves the term. The same explanation can be used for the expression "over dramatised".

r383 types bitchie-queenie-cuntie (and it's her time of day).

R384 Why are you so nasty? IF i have made a remark in the past that offended you, I apologise, but there is no good reason to troll me.

I axed him...I asked him

R384 Can't we be friends mate?

R385, are you or are you not the queen from England who posts here regularly at the crack of dawn US time, castigating everyone for being "bitchie" or "queenie" (always with the "ie" ending instead of "y")?

If that is not you, I apologize for mistaking you for that cunt.

As a writer and editor of 20-plus years who studied language and writing in college and grad school, I appreciate this thread in part because it makes me feel less self-conscious about being so sensitive to usage, and in part because it demonstrates the tediousness and oftentimes the relativity of self-righteous school marm-type behavior. I think by now most informed people understand how language rules came into being, what purpose they serve, and also that language evolves constantly and that there are no more morally “right” or “wrong” attributes of semantics than there are morally right or wrong physical attributes. Language, like life, did not come into being because of rules established by mankind, and neither ever will conform to those arbitrary rules. The notion of “perfect” semantics is as archaic and misguided as the Nazi and Spartan notions of a “perfect” human being. It’s a foolish pursuit. The rules emerged from descriptions of a moment in the development of language, not as a means by which to develop language. Vocabulary did not stop developing at the moment dictionaries were written and their authors attempted to freeze certain words in amber forever and ever as either a noun or a verb, etc. People converted words from one part of speech to another long before anyone described parts of speech and that will always happen, regardless of rules. It’s OK. It bothers me, too, a lot of the time, but we’ve all got knowitall sticks up our asses and need to get real about this. Language is meant to communicate, and so conformity to standards helps to communicate with the greatest number of people who can share a common understanding. Language is not meant to be frozen forever in stone, or to be wielded as a weapon of control over others’ thoughts.

Paragraphs, r389.

Well said R389, and I wholeheartedly agree. R388 I live in Chicago, but am indeed British, but not at all English. I spell nellie like that, but not the others. I'm not sure if I am who you think. I would like to call a truce no matter what, and would like very much for you to stop posting what you did @ R384 on threads I comment on. I am none of those things really.

"on accident"

"Where is it at?"

Literally, like, really

Funny you should mention it R392, as I have noticed many Americans say "on purpose " too. At first I actually was questioning if they were on a personal crusade about the topic at hand. I seem to keep noticing it now ever since. Is this a regionalism?

Hypercorrection: when false rules become commonly accepted as real rules, and people commonly adopt the tendency to “correct” already-correct usage with incorrect/false rules. Read all about it.

dangling modifiers really get my goat.

"While surfing in Hawaii with his friends a shark attacked him."

Should be:

"While surfing in Hawaii with his friends, he was attacked by a shark."

As Told To Us by this John Krasinski look-alike.

I also can't stand people using Grizzly for Grisly. Easy to remember: The grisly remains of a grizzly bear. 🐻

R394 Very good reading. Thanks for the informative post!

R393, what would you say instead of “on purpose”?

A thread title on DL:

You weren’t attracted to them...until you saw their huge cock

Do several men share one cock? What ever happened to " his," when the antecedent is clearly exclusively masculine?

R397 I grew up saying intentionally, rather than "on purpose". I never knew anyone to say "on accident" either until moving to the US. If something was done unintentionally, that is what is said. Furthermore, it is more concise. I think accidentally is the correct choice most of the time, but I hear Canadians as well as Americans use "by accident".

Just FYI R397, after reading the interesting post R394 made, I was curious if this was peeve or truly incorrect. Apparently every source I checked insists "on accident" is not correct usage. (Should always be BY accident) Surprisingly to my ear, on purpose is however. I would think with purpose would make more sense really. I'm sticking with intentional/unintentional. Some words and phrases sound too foreign to me, but other "Americanisms" I have adopted.

I shall continue to use "on purpose." I am American. Neither choice is incorrect, but "on purpose" is what sounds right to me.

Going back to that apostrophe thing for a moment.

I truly believe the many of the written grammatical mistakes that we see are keyboard related. There are many times I'm typing and I will see a mysterious apostrophe s pop up. Also, words like lose versus loose will show up. And you know the difference, but they're there. I've often wished that DL would allow you to edit your posts, but they don't so we move on. So many threads have gotten derailed on DL because of a silly grammatical error that was clearly keyboard driven.

The use of on seems to include many regionalism. While reading about "on accident", a grammarian had written an aside about the phrase "study on". I have not heard this, but apparently in the comments section, many have. [painintheenglish.com]

Typing "loose" when you mean "lose" is not "keyboard driven."

Idiomatic expressions, or idioms seem to be very regional throughout the US. Interestingly enough, one grammarian weighs in with a study, claiming "on accident" is age-related, a study pointing up only people under thirty-five use it. It is more common throughout the American South, West, and West Coast. I'm fifty, and people my own age find me old-fashioned. The more I read, I see more grammarians arguing for the use of both, (on accident & on purpose) though they admit either makes little semantic sense. French idioms are by far more troubling.

I am in my 60s, grew up in New Jersey, and used to say "on accident" when I was a child. My mother and grandmother would correct me, and eventually I stopped saying it. I still think it makes sense as the opposite of "on purpose."

R404, Sorry but I must defend R402 here. Depending on one's device, touch keyboards like my ipad mini seem to have a willful mind of their own sometimes. Very often, mine types jibberish. It is frustrating, and I believe it happens more when the device is near death, i.e. planned obsolescence.

You need a new keyboard, r407.

R406 That is the very same logic with which the grammarians employed, lobbying on behalf of its proponents. It does indeed seem arbitrary one phrase is by, whilst its opposite uses on.

R408 It is touchscreen, so the whole thing is kaput really.

I don't want a touchscreen, ever.

The bloody phones develop the same problem if one tries to keep them too long. The fingerprints are nasty too.

Schooled. You are being taught something.. not schooled. It's teach, or taught. You were not "schooled" something.. you learned something.

R413 That one is a peeve, rather than a blunder. Many say or write He is "schooled" in a certain subject, or field of study. Home-schooled is another form of the word as a verb. There are many examples online. Unschooled is a word too. The use goes back to Middle-English C. 900. I much rather prefer he or she is very learned in a certain area or field of study. American English is confusing, as we Brits used learnt for past tense, learned as an adjective. Perhaps this is not done in American English. Language imprints on us all at such an early age, it is no surprise we become stuck in our grooves like old records.

R414.. You're right. Learnt is also used, but "learned" is used more in American English. I don't hear "learnt" here often.. not that it is incorrect, but just a different variation of the language, spoken more in a different country/region.

Language is always evolving. It's just that we get used to what we were taught, then it shifts.. and new usages become mainstream and acceptable. The older you get, the more annoyed you might become with the different ways of speaking. For me, "functionality" makes me cringe.. as I always said the "function" of this, instead of "functionality". With texting and the internet, now words are abbreviated or initialed (I have to google many times to understand).

I don't hear many North Americans using learned as an adjective either R415. I recall reading a tawdry novel once, and the turn of the phrase was something like "He was very schooled in the art of lovemaking". I suppose in certain instances it may be used as a synonym for skilled. I was taught spoilt, raqther than spoiled too. So many American spellings are considered acceptable in Britain now.

R414 do you mean learn-ED as in scholarly? Americans will say that, though a bit jokey and rustic to me.

I have heard one person in 50+ years say "on accident". Accidentally is used, but by accident is far more common.

Where to begin? What is most galling is the confusion between the subjective and objective use of the personal pronoun. For example, "The Queen is traveling with you and I." Ugh!!!!

From the Great to the Great Unwashed, it is a common problem

There is a poster here, or was a short while back who kept taking me to task on Non-U vocabulary. I found it odd as he clearly was American, or well-versed in American English. He certainly must have been much older than fifty or so, as that was not at all addressed during my education. I don't particularly care for words such as toilet, when a better choice shall suffice, but I honestly don't think many people paid much attention to that nonsense past the end of the 1950s. I recall well meaning teachers chiding us for speaking in elevated language, and trying to sound like toffs. I only acutely became aware of this at University. An opera singer I knew was always striving to perfect his RP at the same time. I wasn't born upper-class, though certainly with advantages. Was this really a common goal in the US, or only amongst theatrical types?

Yes, R418 that is what I meant.

'WOKE' -- if I hear one more person use this POS word, I will bop them in the snout.

I wonder what the origin is of the frequently heard use of "they" when it should be "their" by black Americans. I found the anecdotal info re: axe for ask to be interesting, and I wonder if there is a similar genesis for their/they?

In the south it is all but ubiquitous. Mary, Joe and they grandkids are all going to they cabin by the lake this weekend.

What is they reason for moving?

Axeing someone a question.

^usually a 'querstion'.

Some of these last few certainly fall under the category of dialect.

R420, without some examples besides "toilet," I'm not really certain what you're talking about. I'm American, so while I have an idea of what U and non-U and RP mean, I'm not sure what some of the specific instances of "elevated language" (or non-elevated) might be.

While we're discussing words and grammar, I have a question.

When you "compare and contrast" two things, your results are a comparison and a __________.

What?

I would say "contradistinction", but no one ever uses that word. "Comparison", in everyday language, covers both similarities (comparing thing 1 WITH thing 2) and differences (comparing thing 1 TO thing 2).

Comparison and differentiation. However, that usage will irk mathematicians, who prefer to keep differentiation all to themselves.

I would more than likely say analysis, but that probably is wrong R430.g R427 I have seen different versions of the lists; most recently I came across one reading another linked article, and it specifically was updated for today's concerns and the very technological advances we live with now. I find it most odd, people would so readily attempt to purge their natural vocabulary. I.e. looking glass for mirror. Most seem utterly ridiculous. Stylistically, say in a poem, or a spoken word prose delivery, many of these words are fun, and conjure ideas and associations not possible with current terms, more "romance" if you will. However in everyday writing and speech, it seems ridiculous to declare the word "vino" verboten, and lower class. Today I asked a fifty-six year-old American friend with a theatre degree (in addition to a few others) if he had ever been encouraged to study the "list".... He had never heard of it! There goes my theory regarding Americans only in the theatre....

Purging vocabulary for any reason smacks of Orwellian Newspeak.

Glad you agree R432. The lists seem extremely arbitrary in certain cases. It seems extremely un-American too, hence my surprise there are so many American posters here paying attention to something that died out in Britain shortly before 1960. Improving oneself with skills or education is one thing, but to tell people they must strive to emulate the upper class of Britain is complete absurdity in America, especially now. I cannot support it in Britain either. Those who argue its relevance, claim they can put us into tiny little boxes essentially. Overt class consciousness is tiresome, and a favourite preoccupation of many snarky old queens on the DL.

[quote]However, that usage will irk mathematicians, who prefer to keep differentiation all to themselves.

They're welcome to it. What a clunky, cumbersome word!

I was taught that comparison involved an analysis of both similarities and differences, and that "compare and contrast" was thus a redundancy (deliberately created with the aim of reminding elementary students to be thorough in their answers, but a redundancy nonetheless).

Wouldn't the noun also be "contrast"?

And, as long as I'm up, when did the verbs "love" and "hate" start taking a preposition? "Hate on" I almost get, because it seems like sometimes hatred requires application and practice, but "love on"? That sounds like a euphemism for frottage.

Because reasons!

Could someone please tweet to the Feds that "deviate" is a verb and not an adjective? People from all over the world read these pages and it makes them look unprofessional and ignorant.

"Amonynous" will probably take off.

R238 I have heard Americans from the hinterlands use the verb in conversation too, when referring to "deviate homosexuals", or other sexual "deviates". They clearly do not read, or surely they would be aware of the noun deviant (s).

[quote] "Amonynous" will probably take off.

R439, Pres. Warren G. Harding is responsible for introducing "normalcy" into the language. Like Trump, he was no scholar -- but the office lent him stature & people took him more seriously than he deserved, so now the use of that non-word is seldom questioned (except by me).

"Deviate" is usually a verb, and its use as an adjective has been largely supplanted by "deviant," but it does exist as an adjective/substantive noun (pronounced slightly differently from the verb, similar to how the noun/adjective form of "graduate" is pronounced differently from the verb "graduate").

r442 is correct but I'm not about to give credit to grammar halfwits for reverting to the old term. They just don't know any better. Yes, I know about stopped clocks.

"Shot dead" is my pet peeve. It should be "shot to death" or "shot & killed." Twenty years ago, you never heard "shot dead", unless it was in an old timey Western, or a rap lyric. "I shot him dead". One would never say that someone was "stabbed dead" or "bludgeoned dead".....so why is "shot dead" now totally acceptable in professional writing/journalism?

Does capitalization count in this thread? I've noticed that a certain laziness has crept into the capitalization of titles, so that initial letters are now frequently all capitalized, including articles, prepositions, conjunctions, "to", etc. It looks hideous.