• snooggums@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 month ago

    Mine is petty, but is due to having an internal voice when I read. When commonly used words are misspelled, like using loose instead of lose, I ‘hear’ it pronounced as spelled and it drives me nuts. Homophones like their and there don’t annoy me nearly as much.

    I also mispronounce words learned from reading that don’t follow normal phonetic patterns that I’m used to, like melee, so I do understand why people mix up loose and lose. It is still painful to read.

  • bitjunkie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    I actually came across one of mine in this thread where someone was talking about an unrelated one of theirs: The plural of a word that ends with “st” is “sts”, not also “st”. If you write it like that because that’s how you say it, it’s because you’re also saying it wrong.

  • k_rol@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 month ago

    I get hung up on i.e. vs e.g. I’m not sure this counts as grammar though… I also understand the meaning is not very known so many people confuse the two but I wish it was overall well understood so that the message is very clear.

    E.g. is used when enumerating examples, it doesn’t have to include all possibilities. Like saying “for example…”

    I.e. is to demonstrate exactly what we are talking about. It’s like saying “by that I mean this”.

  • Lileath@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    When people formulate questions as statements, because it throws me out of my reading flow ha ing to correct my inner voice.

  • 1D10@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    When people pretend they cannot understand a sentence becuse of a grammatical error.

    If you honestly can’t parse out what a person is trying to say because they left out a comma or misspelled a word or God forbid used the wrong “their” perhaps you need to work on reading skills.

    • Ledivin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I’m sorry, but, without commas, this is just a mess, and I’m not going to torture myself into reading it.

    • snooggums@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Or they can’t figure out typos where one letter is just an adjacent key and the sentence makes it obvious.

    • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      The brain generates a characteristic signal (from a sub-region of Broca’s area) when it detects grammatical errors—but it generates an identical signal when you’re listening to a grammatical sentence and need to re-parse it partway through. I think this latter case is actually the real purpose of the signal: every time it triggers, your brain is warning you that you need to stop and check the sentence again even if the meaning seems unambiguous. So the “pretending they can’t understand you” reaction could just be a reflexive response to that signal (i.e., the brain is telling them it’s confused even if there’s no logical reason it should be).

  • Lasherz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    1 month ago

    I understand it’s controversial, but people who don’t put the final comma in a list before “and” which then groups the final two items as one erroneously.

    Also, when people put a space before a comma. I’m not sure why they do that, but it’s cemented in some people’s brains who speak fluent English from childhood onward.

      • WindyRebel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 month ago

        I sign this as well. It’s literally a character difference and there is no ambiguity at all. There is no downside.

        • hakase@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          The downside is that with appositive phrases present the Oxford comma can introduce ambiguity:

          “Thanks to my mother, Mother Teresa, and the pope.”

          In the Oxford comma system this is ambiguous between three people (1. my mother 2. Mother Teresa 3. the pope), and two people (1. my mother, who is Mother Teresa 2. the pope). Without the Oxford comma it’s immediately clear that “, Mother Teresa,” is an appositive phrase.

          The opposite happens as well, where Oxford commas allow true appositives to be unintentionally read as lists:

          “They went to Oregon with Betty, a maid, and a cook”, where Betty is the maid mentioned.

          This ambiguity is easily fixed, of course, but then again so is any ambiguity from not using an Oxford comma as well.

          Note that I use the Oxford comma myself, but it’s still worth mentioning that both systems are ambiguous, just in different ways.

    • Dicska@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      I see where you’re coming from. In school we were also taught to NOT put a comma before ‘and’ if it’s a list. I also didn’t quite get it, and found it weird. However, if you consider ‘and’ and a comma serving the same purpose (linking the elements in a list), then putting a comma before ‘and’ would just make either of them redundant. I’m not saying I prefer either of the two, but at least there is a reason to it.

      • Lasherz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        The issue comes in when you consider there are times you’d want to group things. Example:

        I would like a toolbox with 4 drawers: Nuts and bolts, screws, washers and chisels.

        • Dicska@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          Oh, if anything, unless it’s in the last element, it’s easier to see paired items in the list ( ‘,’ -> next element; ’ and ’ -> still the same element, with ‘and’ inside). When it’s the last element, it’s indeed ambiguous. And then there’s /u/hakase 's comment:

          “They went to Oregon with Betty, a maid, and a cook”, where Betty is the maid mentioned.

  • chunes@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    Some of mine in no particular order:

    • Comma splices.
    • Using apostrophes to make abbreviations plural. It’s UFOs, not UFO’s. This goes for decades, too. It’s 1920s, not 1920’s.
    • Putting punctuation in the wrong place when parentheticals are involved (like this.) (Or like this).
    • Same for quotations. Programmers in particular seem averse to putting punctuation on the inside where it usually belongs.
    • Mixing up insure, ensure, and assure.
    • Using ‘that’ where ‘who’ is more appropriate. For example, “People that don’t use their blinkers are annoying.”
  • JakoJakoJako13@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    I absolutely detest the practice of saying the “the proper nouns of the world,” i.e the Tom Brady’s of the world. Or the Empire State buildings of the world. First off, it’s a proper noun. The implication of a proper noun is there is only one specific instance. Second, that’s diminishing to the proper noun used by lowering that status to the mean. Last, it’s usually used in a sports context to unnecessarily group up a bunch of players even though we already know the context of why they’re being grouped up for comparison. It’s just fucking dumb. It really grinds my gears.

  • Denjin@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 month ago

    This cafe

    A cafe called Sutton Snax's

    I mean I try not to be a dick about spelling and grammar and stuff these days, but come on!

    • 200ok@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      I feel this way when people reference decades like, “it was acceptable in the 80’s”.

      If anything, the apostrophe should be in front to denote the year being truncated: '80s

    • palordrolap@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      It could be owned by an entity called Sutton Snax. That probably isn’t what they’re going for, but it could be read that way.

      Now, x-apostrophe might be (more?) correct in that instance but it’s far more forgivable than any interpretation as a plural.

  • Deestan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 month ago

    Resistance to shifting grammar annoys me.

    Educated linguists know really well that language changes over time. It is natural and expected. There are also living valid variations of grammar outside standardized “book” grammar.

    People who are zero educated just go with whatever.

    People who are half educated juuuust enough to be smartasses but not enough to be smart will say shit like “I don’t know, can you?” in response to “Can I go to the bathroom”. Or pretend an emphasized negation - aka double negative - can be interpreted as a positive.

    • davidgro@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Regarding double negatives, I get what you are saying, but they absolutely can be interpreted as a positive - this is easily proven by simply reversing one of them, and they can be reversed because they are after all negatives.

      But if the speaker’s meaning is clear then of course it’s rude and incorrect to misinterpret them.
      I feel like there’s a gray area though where some constructions may be genuinely ambiguous which way the speaker meant (since a double negative as negative by definition means the opposite of what the words would mean otherwise)

  • Darleys_Brew@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    “Then” when it should be “than”.

    People starting sentences with “I mean”, and no prior context.