Major Grammar/Spelling Peeves

[QueenOfCalifornia]

What is your special grammar and or spelling error that makes you the craziest? I put down the ones that I see or hear the most. When I was growing up, the one that made me the most insane was hearing "irregardless."

WTF? :wtf:

So fellow DU loungers... What is your particular grammar peeve?

[billyskank]

1. The "could care less" one.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

2. You are such

a billyskank!

Hi there:hi:

[billyskank]

3. Damn. You got me.

Hi you. :hi:

[QueenOfCalifornia]

4. HI

BACK TO YOU BILLYSKANK.

Oops - caps lock accident.... But I bet you could hear me better!

[boilerbabe]

42. I like that Monty Python thing playing in your post!!! n/t

[QueenOfCalifornia]

66. No you don't.

How dare you sir! :D

[quip]

77. Oh, I'm sorry; just one moment: is this a five minute argument

or the full half hour? :hi:

[snailly]

15. Me too.

That drives me nutty. I wish I cared less.

[boilerbabe]

45. How about "sooner rather than later"? n/t

[quip]

18. God help me. I CANNOT resist correcting anyone/everyone who does that!

I know; I have issues. :think:

[boilerbabe]

46. As long as you are correct, then keep correcting for...

The betterment of the world--word by word! Yes indeedy! I am guilty of wanting to correct, but keeping silent. I am getting older, and my spelling and grammar are sliding down a bit. So I may not be an authority, here.

I am taking online college courses, though, which seem to get me back on track.

My tendency is to write the "Queen's English" but speak like those in my milieu. Speaking and writing are two different things. I don't even bother to attempt to excel in either one, unless I am turning in a paper.

[boilerbabe]

41. Is it the attitude or the structure that bugs you?

Should one say "I don't care" and cut to the chase?

[billyskank]

67. It's that it's the exact opposite of what they mean.

and clearly they're not actually listening to the words they're saying.

[AwakeAtLast]

5. Your and you're

That is pervasive everywhere!

[boilerbabe]

47. Theirs used as there is...or there's...

Recieved instead of received... oh yeah!

[Liberal Dose]

6. Apostrophe abuse is widespread and should no longer be tolerated. nt

[meow2u3]

35. The only time apostrophes are to be used as plurals is...

when you're using numbers (60's, 80's, 2000's); single letters (mind your p's and q's); and to pluralize initials (ABC's).

[schmuls]

38. This drives me crazy!

[boilerbabe]

48. I was wondering about that myself

I avoid using apostrophes even in those instances. You can capitalize the "P" in Ps and Qs--ok, that does look funny. Let us just say the English language is fucked up to some extent!!

[meow2u3]

61. Wikipedia link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostrophe

Use in forming certain plurals
An apostrophe is used by some writers to form a plural for abbreviations, acronyms, and symbols where adding just s rather than 's may leave things ambiguous or inelegant. While British English formerly endorsed the use of such apostrophes after numbers and dates, this usage has now largely been superseded. Some specific cases:

It is generally acceptable to use apostrophes to show plurals of single lower-case letters, such as be sure to dot your i's and cross your t's. Some style guides would prefer to use a change of font: dot your is and cross your ts. Upper case letters need no apostrophe when there is no risk of misreading: I got three As in my exams,<23> except possibly at the start of a sentence: A's are the highest marks achievable in these exams.
For groups of years, the apostrophe at the end cannot be regarded as necessary, since there is no possibility of misreading. For this reason, most authorities prefer 1960s to 1960's<23> (although the latter is noted by at least one source as acceptable in American usage<24>), and 90s or '90s to 90's or '90's.
The apostrophe is sometimes used in forming the plural of numbers (for example, 1000's of years); however, as with groups of years, it is unnecessary: there is no possibility of misreading. Most sources are against this usage.
The apostrophe is often used in plurals of symbols. Again, since there can be no misreading, this is also regarded as wrong.<23> That page has too many &s and #s on it.
Finally, a few sources accept its use in an alternative spelling of the plurals of a very few short words, such as do, ex, yes, no, which become do's, ex's, etc.<25> In each case, dos, exes, yeses (or yesses) and noes would be preferred by most authorities. Nevertheless, many writers are still inclined to use such an apostrophe when the word is thought to look awkward or unusual without one.

[racaulk]

7. Irregardless

Hate it. It must stop!!!

:mad:

[MorningGlow]

8. Other other

All of the above, and then some! :evilgrin:

[quip]

12. Correct!

And I'm adding a personal fav: moot vs. mute

:hi:

[QueenOfCalifornia]

37. They don't even

sound alike.

I've never seen that one. :hi:

[boilerbabe]

49. Never have seen that one! n/t

[quip]

75. Really?

"The point is mute"

It's so funny that I use it purely for the comedic and mockery affect (sic) :P

[Starbucks Anarchist]

9. Conscious/conscience.

[fishwax]

10. Just for the record, affect and effect can each be both noun and verb

:)

[Orrex]

11. But how can you hope to effect such an effect?

And will it affect your affect?

[fishwax]

14. teehee -- good questions

:D

[boilerbabe]

50. I t will affect your effect!! n/t gotcha

[Midlodemocrat]

76. Yup. You're correct.

[Jamastiene]

13. How could you forget "irregardless(sic, dammit, there is no such word)?"

;)

[Orrex]

16. Every time I hear someone say "irregardless"

I say "that's irridiculous."

[jobycom]

19. Merriam-Webster says it's a word.

Elitist and pseudo-grammarians hate it, but it's a word.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless

[Orrex]

58. Yeah, well. So is "ain't"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ain%27t

And even Merriam-Webster notes that, despite its usage, irregardless is a long way from acceptance.

[jobycom]

59. Which is why I use "ain't" with some frequency.

And "acceptance" is about elitism. As a Democrat, I'm more about egalitarianism.

[Orrex]

60. Oh. You're one of *those.*

Let me guess: postmodernism also gives you a special feeling low in your belly.

:eyes:

[jobycom]

62. I could google and tell you what postmodernism is

but to say it gave me any feeling one way or the other would be a lie. :shrug: And I don't know which "one" of which you think I am. I just hate grammar fundamentalism.

[Orrex]

63. LOL! Well, I'm only half-serious about all of this--especially the PoMo accusation.

But doesn't part of you cringe every time our chimp-in-chief says "nukular?"

Same thing.

[jobycom]

65. I cringe when he says anything, but Jimmy Carter also said nukular, and I have no problem with him.

I'm a southerner, so I'm used to educated people speaking with a dialect.

[Orrex]

68. Carter shouldn't mispronounce it, either

Unless he's also going to describe things that are unclear as "unkular."

[jobycom]

70. My niece says "unkular" when talking about me.

He's just bein' unkular... :)

The thing is, people confuse "proper" and "improper" with "educated" and an "uneducated." As long as a person is communicating effectively, they are speaking properly, even if they are saying "nukular" or "irregardless." Sometimes the way a word is said is just the result of where a person grew up, or what economic level they grew up in, or whether their educational environment favored "proper" English. I don't look down on someone for saying "nucular" or "irregardless." I do look down on people who make a fuss of showing superiority simply because they value their own upbringing and education over others.

Just about every word we speak now, every grammatical or syntactical structure we consider "proper," was once a corruption of another language, or at least an older version of itself. The whole rule against splitting infinitives, for instance, comes from Latin, when it was mistakenly believed that English was based on Latin. English is based on an ancient Germanic language where splitting infinitives was natural, therefore to not split an infinitive is an unnatural restriction on our language. Often, grammar rules try to stifle something that seems natural to the language--dangling participles, trailing prepositions, etc. When that happens, grammarians are using the rules to create an artificial language, rather than using rules to try to better understand the language. The language came first, and the rules were created only to explain the language, not to alter or restrict it.

So, to me, people who complain about "irrespective" or "ain't" or "where something is at" are not promoting proper grammar. They are stifling proper grammar, and often (and this bothers me more, because even though I love language, it is secondary) using their education to create an elite, based on upbringing, education, and often simply regional or economic backgrounds.

My number one reason for being a Democrat--the one thing that makes me a liberal and not a conservative, and that makes me side with the Democrats most often, I should say--is egalitarianism. I believe that all people are equal, and that no law, attitude, or artificial construct should create two classes of people. Racism, misogyny, homophobia, age discrimination, health discrimination, educational elitism, anything that creates the attitude that one person is fundamentally better than another, is unAmerican, in the sense that I believe in the word "America." That doesn't mean that all people are equally right, or that all people should be forced into an economic or social equality. It doesn't mean that all people should fit into a mold, in other words. It means that nothing should prevent anyone from being what they can be, or what they want to be, or, often, just what they are.

It also doesn't mean that there are no wrong ways to speak. If you say comprise when you mean compose, or if you say apropos when you mean appropriate, or if you say utilize when you mean use, you are not communicating effectively. Or if you use a string of pronouns with unclear antecedents, or whatever, you are not communicating effectively. But if someone says "irregardless," I know what they mean, so I will listen to what they say, instead of how they say it.

I'm not saying grammar fundies are bad or wrong or undemocratic or unamerican. I'm simply explaining why that attitude goes against my nature.

Just my thoughts. Feel free to form your own. :) Assuming anyone bothers to read all this. :rofl:

[Orrex]

83. Your points are valid, but...

"Libary" and "nukular" and "puddin" and "irregardless" are, for the present, tag-words that mark the speaker as seriously ill-informed about the proper usages of words, at least. Other conclusions of varying validity may be drawn from those mispronunciations, for good or ill. Contributing to the problem is that many speakers attempt to puff themselves up via inflated language or buzzwords, in a misguided effort to sound smarter than they are. "Irregardless" is often used in this capacity, in my experience.

There is, in your post, a judgmental air that you may or may not intend. It isn't elitist to have a preferred mode of communication, any more than it is elitist to prefer to discuss certain subjects rather than others. I'm also not entirely comfortable to have formal use of language lumped in with racism and homophobia, even by oblique association. I understand and accept that this is probably not your intent, but I'd caution against even such unintentional linkages.

You're right, of course, in that language exists for communcation, and communicating effectively means that language has been used effectively, whether the speaker says "nukular" or whatever. But it's not that simple.

Comedian Jake Johansen once had a routine in which he mocked his own lack of automotive knowledge. Something was wrong with his car, and he brought the offending compenent (which he called a "tube thing") to the parts supplier. The employee was on the phone with his wife, but, seeing Johansen approach and remembering his lack of precise knowledge, said "honey, we're going on a trip--the 'tube thing' guy is here!"

That is, sometimes precision in language is called for, and those of us who have studied its formal use are legitmately concerned with "how they say it" in addition to "what they say," because often "how they say it" is "what they say." That's not elitism; adherence or non-adherence to conventions of formal language indicates to me only that the speaker is or is not adhering to formal language conventions. It's not a value judgment on the person's worth or intelligence or correctness. Nor is it elitism.

Anyone who has ever spent time talking to a lawyer or a stock broker or a doctor knows very well that the precise use of language is sometimes essential, because a misused word here or there can yield a result wildly different from what the listener might expect. Neither is this elitism; it's a simple fact of modern communication.

Naturally, this doesn't apply to every spoken interaction nor to every piece of written discourse, but it's simply unrealistic to claim that all ways of saying the same thing are somehow equal, because they're simply not.

[jobycom]

86. That's pretty much what I was calling elitist.

I wasn't talking about a person not communicating effectively--in fact, I said the opposite. But the word "irregardless" never leads to confusion. Yet some people label the word as wrong, defective, not even a word, etc. They heap scorn on those who use it. That's the essence of elitism to me--judging someone on appearance, or conformity to a constructed ideal, rather than on content.

[Orrex]

88. If someone always addressed by the wrong name, would you correct her? Even the first time?

Or would you say "I know that she's referring to me, so it would be elitist of me to correct her" instead?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean to communicate by the word "elitist?"

At the moment, your point seems to be that everything is a word, so long as at least one person is able to use it to communicate something to someone else?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

69. Because "irregardless" sounds so much better than "regardless"...

...irregardless of the fact it isn't a real word. :)

[jobycom]

17. An apostrophe most certainly can be used to form a plural. And irregardless is fine with me.

I guess my biggest pet peeve is the mistaken belief that English follows a set of rules, rather than the rules following English usage. If it is communication, it is fine.

Though I do hate when people use "comprise" for "compose." That's not really a grammar thing, though, that's just a wrong word.

An apostrophe and s are used to form the plurals of lowercase letters. Google it.

[Zavulon]

20. Definately.

When I see anyone use this spelling, I just roll my eyes, mutter "fucking retard," and move on.

[Starry Messenger]

28. That's one of my peeves too.

Do they not teach root words anymore?

MPK

[fishwax]

21. I could care less about "could/couldn't care less"

I could care less, but it would require considerable effort.

People saying they could care less when in fact they mean they could not care less doesn't bother me any more than people saying "fat chance" when they really mean "slim chance" or "that's just great" when they really mean "that is very bad."

[tilsammans]

22. "Alright"

I don't care if Microsoft's spell checker thinks it's acceptable.

"Alright" is NOT a word.

:grr:

[Critters2]

23. The word "media" is a PLURAL NOUN!!!! PEOPLE!!!

PLEASE! I beg of you!! Stop saying "the media is". Is that really too much to ask?!!!!

[fishwax]

36. yes, I'm afraid that's too much to ask

Media is the plural of medium, it is true, but it is also a collective noun akin to saying "the press." Both plural and singular verb forms can be used with "media," and there is nothing wrong with using a singular verb for media, particularly if you're trying to emphasize that collective aspect. Indeed that usage is as old as the mass media itself :)

[Seeking Serenity]

57. And "stadia" is the plural of "stadium"

I hate hearing "stadiums." Or "auditoriums" or "honorariums," etc.

[PittPoliSci]

72. Actually, stadiums is permissable if you are referring to modern stadia.

[Seeking Serenity]

73. No, it isn't. Not in my household.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

24. I have three

1. "Between you and I"

It's "between you and ME," damn it. "Between" is a preposition, so it should be followed by "me." Take, for example, people who say "for you and I." You wouldn't say "for I," would you? You'd say "for me." Therefore, you should say, "for you and me," "between you and me," "Do you want to go shopping with him and me?"

2. The distinction between "lie" and "lay" has disappeared within my lifetime.

I remember one of our neighbors, no educated elite, not by a long shot, yelling at her dog to "Shut up and lie down!" SHE was using the correct form. Few people today can.

When you are horizontal on a surface, you are lying on it, not "laying" on it. Here are some sample sentences to help you remember:

"I think I'm going to lie down for a few minutes."
"I was exhausted, so I lay down on the couch and fell asleep."
"I've never lain in bed all day."

To lay means to put something or someone else into a horizontal position:

"I'm going to lay the baby down for a nap."
"I laid the baby down for a nap."
"I've already laid the baby down for a nap."

3. Using the past tense instead of the past participle. I first heard this on the West Coast, but it seems to have spread.

I'm referring to things like "I have drank," "I have ate," "I have came," "I have drove," and other abominations.

"I have drunk," "I have eaten," "I have come," "I have driven." How hard is that?

[astral]

25. Effect and Affect -- you're all still wrong

Effect can be a verb, as in to cause to happen, as in you can effect a change, which means you cause it to happen, as opposed to if you affect a change, you merely have an effect on the change that is going to happen with or without your help.

[mwooldri]

26. "American English".

Spelling words differently, different names for the same thing, even some things that are grammatically correct in English aren't in American and vice-versa (obscure rules I can't remember).

At least you have an easier spelling of diahorreah.

Mark.

[jeff30997]

29. Question about the letter Z :

Do you pronounce it Zee or Zed ? I ask this because some English-speaking Canadians say Zed.

[mwooldri]

31. Depends on the audience.

Brits: Zed. BBC says Zed.
Americans (especially at work on the phone): Zee.

Spice Girls first hit mentions both "A to Zee" and "A to Zed"...

Mark.

[jeff30997]

32. Thanks for the info mwooldri.

:thumbsup:

[falcon97]

27. I need an "all of the above" option.

They all drive me insane. Well, more insane.

[jeff30997]

30. It's not Grammar or Spelling but...

When I hear someone say Nucular I want to scream !

[hobbit709]

33. There, their, they're and my fave-lightening.

[lizerdbits]

34. Funny that I even voted

(I picked they're, there, and their) since I am the wort speller ever. If not for spell check most people would assume I dropped out of school at age 7. The other funny thing is if I read what I just typed I'll find I make the same mistakes that bother me when other people make them.

[Left Is Write]

39. I can't choose just one, and I don't have enough time today to list them all.

:D

[boilerbabe]

40. Apostrophes in the wrong places..

I have got to the point where even I have lost track of where they should go!! AAAGGG!

Do you put them after a plural number, like the 60s? I avoid that one at all costs...

[Arugula Latte]

43. I COULD OF chosen all of these.

Using "of" instead of the contraction "'ve" as a way to shorten "have," as in "I could have chosen all of these."

[Guava Jelly]

44. I don't have any

I think it's silly to get upset over grammar on an internet board.
And with my shitty grammar I'd be labeled a hypocrite.

[Seeking Serenity]

51. Other: All of the above and then some.

"Lose" means to not win.
"Loose" means unbound or to unbind.
They are not the same.

As was mentioned above, using "irregardless" when one means "irrespective."

Using the plural pronouns "they" or "their" to refer to an individual or an individual's belonging. As in, "Everyone must pick their clothes," as opposed to the correct, "Everyone must pick up his clothes."

Double negatives.

On edit: Using "hopefully" in any way other than as an adverb when one means to say, "it is to be hoped." As in. "Hopefully, we will go to the beach today." Correct usage: "I am hopefully awaiting my package from Battle Creek, Michigan."

[fishwax]

78. Hopefully is perfectly acceptable in either of those cases

Hopefully has been around as a sentence adverb for around three hundred years. People complaining about the use of hopefully as a sentence adverb have only been around for about forty :).

For whatever reason, there is almost never any complaint about other sentences adverbs. "Thankfully, it isn't raining" raises no objection, but "Hopefully, it isn't raining" does.

The use of "their" as a singular is even older, dating back more than 700 years. Still, it's become more common in the last few decades as a gender-neutral pronoun that is less awkward than using "his or her." Curiously, its use in centuries past drew no objection, that I know of, and it was not until it was employed as an alternative to the generic masculine that it became an issue.

[LanternWaste]

52. Internet shorthand getting applied to non-internet venues

Internet shorthand getting applied to non-internet venues. E.g., a memo I received earlier this week from management had "lmao" written into the body. For myself, I find it unprofessional, jarring and distracting.

Just a pet peeve mind you... I certainly wouldn't want some egalitarian yahoo with a theory of grammar relativity correcting me with "Function follows Form! It's in the Dictionary!" :P

[Mutley]

54. I've had people say LOL to me in spoken conversation.

Don't get me wrong, I use LOL in certain outlets on the internet, but if someone is speaking to me, why don't they just laugh out loud? :shrug:

[LanternWaste]

55. That's just... weird!

"I've had people say LOL to me in spoken conversation."

That's just... weird! I thought seeing it in a business memo was a bit out there, but in actual conversation? Oy vey!


(lol) ;)

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

56. But when spoken, LOL means

little old lady

a mild description I've been known to mutter at slow drivers.

[Mutley]

53. Not everyone is going to be an expert at grammar and puntuation.

Just like not everyone is going to be an expert at computers or driving. However, one does need basic knowledge of all those things to be able to make it safely through life. I do believe the difference between their/they're/there, your/you're and it's/its falls under the "basic knowledge" category.

[WinkyDink]

64. Retired English teacher here. I vote for "All of the above, and more besides!"

But "alot/a lot" and the infamous trio of "their/they're/there" rank near the top.

[PittPoliSci]

71. other: people who do not use oxford commas.

For example, when making a list of stuff:

I need to bring my hat, glove, spikes, and bat.

There should ALWAYS be a comma before the "and."

I dislike it when people list things without it, for example:

I am a poor writer because I do not understand how to use semicolons, apostrophes, quotation marks and commas.

[Seeking Serenity]

74. That's a newspaper thing, I was told.

Newspapers stopped using the Oxford commas as a means to save on ink, and now it's (most unfortunately) common. At least that what I was told.

(edited to fix unforgivable spelling error)

[Mutley]

79. Everyone of my English profs told us NOT to use that last comma.

It was a very difficult habit to break, and I don't use it to this day.

[Mutley]

94. Or "every one".

How embarrassing to make such a mistake in a grammar thread. :blush:


:P

[PittPoliSci]

98. haha it's the internets, i don't think you should worry about that. n/t

:hi:

[PittPoliSci]

97. they're wrong.

I will use it until I die.

[Brigid]

80. The apostrophe one.

It makes me absolutely nuts! :banghead:

[Crunchy Frog]

81. I type "alot" alot.

Somehow it just seems to reflect more what I'm trying to express.

[skygazer]

82. "Where are you at?"

Where does the "at" come from? Why can't people just say, "Where are you?"

And before someone jumps on me, it doesn't bother me with people for whom English is a second language because some languages use that construct. However, that's not where I hear it all the time.

[lady raven]

84. It's too hard to pick just one!

Most of these annoy the hell out of me!

[rucky]

85. Apostrophe's totally make me loose it!

[bigwillq]

87. I am not a spelling nazi.

Nothing really bothers me about spelling mistakes. It's just not something that I care to get all worked up over.

[OmahaBlueDog]

89. The overuse and misuse of "surreal"

Increasingly, "surreal" is used by folks who mean to say "unreal" or "extreme" or something else. People will say things like "It was surreal -- the Redskins scored 2 touchdowns in a minute and a half." That is actually not surreal. "Surreal" would be if the Redskins suddenly appeared in baseball uniforms and were tossing a porcupine instead of a football.

[Radical Activist]

90. Sometime in the late 19th century spelling and grammar became standardized.

I'm still annoyed by that.

[ironflange]

91. The phrase "pet peeve"

Pet peeve refers to the ONE thing that pisses you off more than anything else. It just sets my teeth on edge when people say things like "one of my biggest pet peeves. . ." or "what is your #1 pet peeve?" These phrases would be fine without "pet" in them; you can have as many peeves as you like, but you can have only one pet peeve.

[Orrex]

92. Speak for yourself. My pet peeves all over the place.

I wish he'd keep it in the damned litter box.

[ThoughtCriminal]

93. Bob's quick Guide to the Apostrophy

http://www.angryflower.com/

[ThoughtCriminal]

95. And the plural of Attorney General

is not "Attorney Generals" it is "Attorneys General"

Oddly enough, that does not seem to come up very often.

edit: I'm not sure about plural for "Surgeon General"
"Surgeons General" or "Surgeon Generals"
Does the uniform make a difference?

[pinniped]

96. This one:

Example:

The dog was chewing its tail. (correct!)

The dog was chewing it's tail. (incorrect!)

http://www.apostrophe.fsnet.co.uk/

[qwertyMike]

99. Split infinitives

as in "To better serve our customers ...

Instead of - To serve our cusromers better

Ugh

[Seeking Serenity]

100. Or, "To boldly go where no man has gone before."

Probably the most well-known split infinitive.

It should have been, "Boldly to go where no man has gone before." or, "To go boldly where . . . ."

[qwertyMike]

101. And..

'I, personally'

Who else?

[fishwax]

103. oh, that's a silly rule

and there has never really been widespread agreement about it. The idea that we ought not split infinitives wasn't suggested until the 19th century, and even then there were plenty of learned scholars and talented writers who argued the rule was absurd.

Long live the split infinitive!

:)

[Skittles]

102. PEOPLE WHO PUT AN "R" IN THE WORD "WASH"

IT SOUND FUCKING STUPID