It bugs me when people say “the thing is is that” (if you listen for it, you’ll start hearing it… or maybe that’s something that people only do in my area.) (“What the thing is is that…” is fine. But “the thing is is that…” bugs me.)

Also, “just because <blank> doesn’t mean <blank>.” That sentence structure invites one to take “just because <blank>” as a noun phrase which my brain really doesn’t want to do. Just doesn’t seem right. But that sentence structure is very common.

And I’m not saying there’s anything objectively wrong with either of these. Language is weird and complex and beautiful. It’s just fascinating that some commonly-used linguistic constructions just hit some people wrong sometimes.

Edit: I thought of another one. “As best as I can.” “The best I can” is fine, “as well as I can” is good, and “as best I can” is even fine. But “as best as” hurts.

  • MyTurtleSwimsUpsideDown@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    I hate that punctuation is “supposed” to go inside quotation marks. If you doing anything more complex than a simple statement of a quote, you run into cases where it doesn’t make sense to me.

    Did he say “I had pancakes for supper?” and Did he say “I had pancakes for supper”? mean different things to me.

    Similarly: That jerk called me a “tomato!” and That jerk called me a “tomato”!

    It feels to me that the first examples add emphasis to the quotes that did not exist when originally spoken, whereas the second examples isolate the quote, which is the whole point of putting it in quotation marks.

    • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Because they’re wrong. And not in a “these kids and their new-fangled language” way, but in a “this is literally improper English” way.

      • wjrii@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yet “would’ve”, “could’ve”, and “should’ve” are fine, if a touch informal, and sound literally identical in most dialects and accents. View it as your own personal window into how your conversation partner engages with language.

        • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          6 months ago

          It’s not about sound. Would’ve is a contraction of “would have” not “would of.”

          Would of is not a different way to interact with English because the meaning of “have” and “of” are completely different.

          • wjrii@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            LOL, all I really meant is you get to learn that they don’t really engage with the language beyond translating sounds into letters. No real thought is given to why they say or write the things they do. It’s useful information.

  • JoeKrogan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    “On accident”… That doesn’t even make sense. You do something “by accident”.

  • ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    I really can’t stand when someone says something happened, or they did something, “on accident”.

    No. You do something on purpose or by accident.

    • Hegar@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 months ago

      I vaguely remember hearing that you can know whether someone was born before or after a specific year, depending on whether they use by or on accident.

  • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    When discussion leads to another question, it raises the question.

    To beg the question is to invoke a presumptive, circular argument.

    And yet, now it’s to beg the question, even on the US Senate floor by boomers who should know better.

  • sqw@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    6 months ago

    my peeve is the chopped infinitive, like “it needs fixed” instead of “it needs to be fixed”

      • tiredofsametab@kbin.run
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        6 months ago

        Nope. Native US English speaker born in Ohio and a lot of the region into Appalachia uses this construction. IIRC it came from Irish and/or Scottish folks that settled there.

    • TheHarpyEagle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      I’m guilty of this, and for some reason “the dishes need doing” in particular tickles my brain. That one doesn’t even make sense with an infinitive!

      • sqw@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        that one doesn’t bother me at all. “needs fixing”, “needs to be fixed”, same thing. but “needs fixed” can fuck right off.

  • TheHarpyEagle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    I hate the confusion that “do you mind” questions cause.

    “Do you mind if I turn off the light?”

    What is meant in response: “No (I don’t mind)”

    What’s said instead: “Yes”

    I feel like two people never really know how the other will interpret it, so you almost always have to say something like “yes, go ahead” or “no, I don’t mind” (or “no, go ahead”). If they do respond just “yes” or “no”, I feel like I have to ask for clarification.

    Also can we get the meaning of “semi-” and “bi-” figured out? I generally love the oddities of evolving language so long as we can all still be understood, but these two always require clarification.

    Bi-annual: Every two years.
    Semi-annual: Twice a year

    Make it a law!

    • AEsheron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      This is why we need to bring back yae and nay. We used to have two different yes and no words, one set was used in exactly this context. French still has it IIRC. I can’t remember which were which in English, I think yae and nay were for positive questions, and yes and no were for negative questions. Aha, quick Google shows that is right, neat.

  • BougieBirdie@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    6 months ago

    One thing I try to avoid when I’m writing is when two words repeat. Kind of like your example “the thing is is that.” If I catch myself writing it, I try to rearrange the sentence.

    Although a pretty extreme example tickles me: “The cookie he had had had had no effect on his appetite.”

    • Coco@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      6 months ago

      James, while John had had “had”, had had “had had”. “Had had” had had a better effect on the teacher.

    • Bob@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      Dutch has the same phenomenon, being so similar to English, but the standard way of writing it is by putting a comma after the noun phrase. So in your example, it’d change to “the cookie he had had, had had…” Typically practical solution that forfeits a charming oddity.

  • mrunicornman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    6 months ago

    Using “basis” to mean “based on”.

    “Basis our discussion, please go ahead and…” “We decided on a price point basis our market research.”

    It makes me uncomfortable.

  • daddyjones@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    6 months ago

    I hate the recent trend of using “onboarding”. It sounds clunky to me and as if you’re trying to sound all cool and up to date.

    • forgotaboutlaye@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Is there a replacement that you’re fond of? We use it all the time at work - onboarding free users, onboarding paid users, onboarding employees.

  • Earl Turlet@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Misusing words like “setup” vs “set up”, or “login” vs “log in”. “Anytime” vs “any time” also steams my clams.

  • AccountMaker@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    6 months ago

    This might be due to the fact that I’m not a native speaker and I encountered this phrase at a later date, but people saying “it’s all but xyz” to mean “it’s xyz” really gets on my nerves. I get it, “it’s all but complete” means that virtually all the conditions are met for it to be complete, but I find it so annoying for some reason.

    “The task is all but impossible” registers as ‘it’s not impossible, it’s everything else: possible’, so the fact that it means the opposite of that makes my brain twitch.

    • wjrii@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 months ago

      English intensifiers tend not to follow Boolean logic flows very well (think of double negatives). Instead, try to think of it as a little bit of extra data for your or the speaker’s benefit. “It’s all but impossible” does mean it’s possible, as you say, but there is more there. It means, “while this is possible, it’s so difficult or unlikely that we cannot count on normal levels of luck or effort to help us; you should reset your expectations accordingly.”

      Your other example is similar. “It’s all but complete” tells you that the project or event is almost but notyet complete, but more than that. It means “This is very nearly complete. It is so close to complete, in fact, that the remaining time will be trivial. I suspect or know that you are eager for it to be complete, so unless doing so is all but impossible (😁), please try to be patient just a little bit longer.”

      “All but” is a way to linguistically make a fine gradation in levels of “almost”.

  • Kernal64@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    What really gets me agitated is when people don’t use the helper verb “to be.” Examples include, “The tea needs strained,” or “The car needs washed.” No, you miserable cunts. The tea needs TO BE strained. The car needs TO BE washed. Nothing presently needs the past tense of an action. I know there’s parts of the US where this sentence construction is common but those entire regions can honestly fuck off. People say it’s a dialect or something. I don’t buy it. Not knowing basic rules of your native language isn’t a dialect. It’s just you being dumb. I hate it so much!

    You know what else I hate? “It is what it is.” Of course it is, you dense motherfucker! If it wasn’t what it was, it would be something else, which would then be what it is! It’s the most nonsensical phrase I’ve ever heard and it pretty much exists so you have something to say when you have nothing even remotely worth hearing to say.

    • AmidFuror@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      “it is what it is” makes sense to me. Yes, it’s tautological. But it’s just emphasizing the point that whatever it is cannot be changed by the people discussion discussing it.

    • Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I know there’s parts of the US where this sentence construction is common but those entire regions can honestly fuck off.

      Also bits of Nothern England. My Geordie friend uses that all the time. It feels really wrong.

    • Hugh_Jeggs@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      Wait till you get to parts of northern England where they say “The car wants washing” 😂

      • wjrii@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        That’s just it. Neither of the phrases is “wrong;” they are just a dialectical feature some people don’t share. There’s a systematic conjugation there, the lack of the helper verb is completely irrelevant if the person uses the construction consistently, and meaning is communicated successfully without it. The only reason to avoid it is as a social choice to avoid being judged by people who would call you a miserable cunt, or maybe to prove you completed a needlessly strict course of instruction in English grammar that proves you’re not a miserable cunt.

      • PatMustard@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        “The car wants washing” is fine, thankfully I’ve never heard anyone north or south say “The car wants washed”, which was OP’s concern

    • Default_Defect@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      A former boss of mine was a frequent user of “it is what it is” and now I just associate it with shit decision making and people that manage to fail upward.

      • Kernal64@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Yeah, I’ve noticed something similar. It’s always the worst people who use that phrase to paper over their shit ideas or decisions.

  • Buglefingers@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    “Next weekend” “Next Friday” etc. Wherein they use “Next” to mean “the one after” rather than “the soonest interval in which it will reoccur”

    If it is Wednesday and you say “Next Friday” I will immediately think of two days from now, not 9 days. I also especially dislike it because if feels like on a whim that it’ll change. for some “next weekend” will be in 5 days if it’s Monday, or 10 days if it’s Wednesday! What the heck people??

    • ouRKaoS@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      6 months ago

      On a Wednesday I would use “This Friday” or just “Friday” to describe 2 days away. Using “next” in the context you’re describing seems weird to me.

      • __Lost__@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        If it’s Wednesday, “Friday” or “this Friday” would describe the day in 2 days. “Next Friday” would be 9 days away. I think it’s clear and have never had an issue with people not knowing which day is being discussed. Maybe people around here are more consistent about it than other areas?

        • Piafraus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          That is always confusing to me. If I am on a bus stop: “This bus” doesn’t make sense, it doesn’t exist yet. Next bus, is the next occurance of event “Bus”.

          If it’s Wednesday, the “this Friday” doesn’t really make sense. There doesn’t exist a Friday in Wednesday, that you call this. Next Friday however is quite clear - it’s next occurrence of event “Friday” on the timeline, so it’s the one in two days.

          • OhNoMoreLemmy@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            Ok but if you’re at a bus stop, and the bus is just coming round the corner into sight, you can say “this bus” even though it’s not parked up yet.

            Same thing with this Friday. If it’s close enough to be in mind, you can use this.