Please state in which country your phrase tends to be used, what the phrase is, and what it should be.
Example:
In America, recently came across “back-petal”, instead of back-pedal. Also, still hearing “for all intensive purposes” instead of “for all intents and purposes”.
“If worse comes to worst…”
In British English, they often say the phrase as “if worst comes to worst,” which is based on archaic grammar.
In the US, there’s a mix of verb tenses. The only one that make sense in this day and age is “if what is worse comes to be the worst,” or “if worse comes to worst.”
This point can be argued, but I will be severely wounded (maybe not so much as dying) defending this hill.
Niche is pronounced neesh and not nitch
In the USA and other English-speaking countries: weary =/= wary.
For example, I’ll see someone write something like: “I am weary of the campfire because it is so hot”
You aren’t tired of the campfire! You are wary of it!
“Could of…”
It’s “could have”!
Edit: I’m referring to text based things, like text and email. I can pretty much ignore the mispronouncing.
That’s a dialectal difference, not an error.
Not when written
I mean no? The have in could have is pronounced the same as of, but at least AFAIK no dialect explicitly says could of. Tell the other person to not mesh the two words together and they’ll say have. I think.
Minor nit pick from my experience. If the word is written out “could have” I enunciate the entire word. I only pronounce the contraction “could’ve” as “could of”. And vice versa when dictating.
It’s very much not recommended, and generally seen as an error. But this article puts an asterisk on it.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/whats-worse-than-coulda
I am viscerally against this concept.
It’s one thing to include the spelling as a way to capture the phonetics of an accent or a dialect, entirely another to accept its use in writing when using a neutral voice.
If anything, because it’s so often just a misspelling I would avoid trying to use it as a phonetics thing just as a matter of style. At this point everybody would think I’m making a mistake instead of trying to mimic a way of speech in a way they’d never do with “coulda”.
With you on all counts.
I think they just heard could’ve or meant to say could’ve
Also they’re/their, your/you’re, here/hear, to/too.
Please state what country your phrase tends to be used
Please state in which country your phrase tends to be used…
Casey Point
Touché
This reply deserves to be put on a peddle stool
Pretty sure it’s “Feral Intensive Porpoises”
Former colleague used to say "for all intensive purposes"every few sentences.
English/US - seeing “would of” instead of “would’ve”or “would have”. This one bugs me the most.
The thing is that, at least in the UK, many people also say “of”. You might say that in quick speech it’s not possible to tell between “would’ve” and “would of” which is probably where this misspelling came from, but I once was talking to my English friend and after he said something quickly, I asked if he just said that “she would see it?”, to which he replied “she would OF seen it” putting a lot of emphasis on that “of”, making it clear that he wasn’t aware that it should be “have”.
Using “racking” instead of the correct “wracking” in “wracking my brain”. Not very common, but it annoys me… But not as much as “could of”… That is the worst, just stop it!
This is online and in person in Canada.
“that begs the question”. I wish people would just use the more correct “raises the question”, especially people doing educational/academic content. I hear it across the English-speaking internet
Forte being pronounced for-tay.
This isn’t music.
… It’s Latin. That is, in fact, how you pronounce that
It’s French, it’s the strongest part of a sword, and it’s pronounced fort.
I didn’t know what Merriam Webster is smoking, but the word fortis, forte derives from the Latin word for strength.
what Merriam Webster is smoking
Remember, Noah Webster fucked English for America, and then somehow they made a dictionary to keep fucking it. Just exclude it from any kind of discussion.
And, keep in mind, what’s popular has no bearing on what’s right. America has a chequered past with doing the wrong thing in great numbers.
Isn’t the for-tay pronuciation literally the first example on this link?
It is, as well as being 3/4 of the provided usages and a large proportion of the examples.
Irregardless is just a synonym for Regardless now and I staunchly oppose anyone who tries to correct it.
“Flammable” and “Inflammable” are synonymous, so…
Yeah but “irregardless” is like “un-non-flammable”
How about “irregardful”?
I like it. Not unbad at all.
“Literally” and “literally” are antonyms.
Thank you, satan.
You should only use the weird in its full context:
Not without a lack of disregard
To “step foot on”. I don’t care that millennial journalists are now sullying the literal NYT with this, it’s WRONG. It’s to set foot on. To SET foot on.
“Set foot” might be better established (and sound better), but “step foot” is not new.
Yeah yeah I know. But “set” (fun fact: it’s the word with the most meanings in the Oxford English Dictionary) is the transitive form of “sit”, so it’s more grammatical, more elegant and shorter than “step”. Which obviously comes from a mishearing by someone who didn’t read books, yet people will still get indignant and claim that it’s somehow better! I need to lie down. ;)
I like your comment for the most part, but:
obviously comes from a mishearing by someone who didn’t read books
This is assumptive and prescriptive. The link I sent demonstrates that it’s been used extensively and for a long time by people who not only read books, but write books. I’m on board that “set foot” is the better phrase and likely to be the earlier one, but trying to dictate which is correct is - respectfully - a fool’s errand.
Yes yes I know all that. Prescriptivism is bad, tut tut!, a serious linguist only describes language, etc etc.
But whether it was 400 years ago or yesterday, to me personally it’s thunderingly obvious that “step” comes from a mishearing, all while being inferior in every way. It’s even tautological, since the “foot” is already implied in the word “step”. It’s like saying “He was hand-clutching a bag”. One is short, logical, and respects grammatical convention. The other… isn’t and doesn’t.
Occasionally great new coinings come about from mishearings (can’t think of one right now but they exist). This is not one of them.
Step foot I’m stuck!
Wh… What are you doing, step-toe?
Capitalizing black mid-setence. It’s an absolutely ridiculous convention, and something only the American Left could take seriously.
Sincerely, Everyone else
Americans saying “I could care less” instead of “I couldn’t care less”.
Doesn’t this make sense if someone says it in a sarcastic manner?
No
I care a tiny bit. I could care less, but not easily.
I’ve seen so many attempts at justification for that one online but I can’t help but think that those people just don’t want to admit that they’re wrong.
I say “I couldn’t care less”, but I used to think that “I couldn’t care less” was used in context where someone seemed like they don’t care and they give that as a snarky remark, implying that they can care even less.
I also like the bonus “hold down the fort” at the end.
Because as you know, it’s an inflatable hover fort and, once relieved of my weight, it might float off into the sky.
I agree that this is very vaguely irritating, but for me it only differs by one sound and a vowel quality
“I couldn’t care less” [aɪ̯.kɘ̃ʔ.kɛɹ.lɛs] vs “I could care less” [aɪ̯.kɘ.kɛɹ.lɛs]
I say “I could care less” and then follow it up with, “but I’d be dead”. Correcting “I could care less” is dumb because you literally can care less about lots of stuff, but saying the phrase indicates you just don’t really care.
Came here to share this one too
I could care less, but then I wouldn’t care at all…
Idk why hoes mad at you this is the cleverest way to mix up the saying while keeping it’s intent.
Coming from the other direction - when someone ackshullys a parson, but the person was using the phrase correctly.
I had to explain to someone online today that “liminal space” had multiple meanings, and it didn’t only refer to spaces you transition through, and the spooky “liminal space aesthetic” is a valid and coherent use of the word “liminal” and the term “liminal space”
